Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6907 of 2023 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for C.C.B. Cases at Egmore, Chennai.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner-Company namely M/s.Ideaforge Technology Limited approached the second respondent/defacto complainant for selling their new product RYNO (Q4i- Micro) IAV/Drone on March 2021. The complainant's company expressed their interest in purchasing 15 nos. of RYNO (Q4i-Micro) IAV/Drone and placed an order for the said drones and made full payments for the same in compliance with the agreed terms. The cumulative payment for the 15 drones, including GST, amounted to Rs.2,20,67,050/-. The Drone's software was being maintained, updated and serviced by the petitioner-Company. On 10.06.2023, the petitioner-Company without any prior notice or justifiable reason, virtually locked and disabled the purchased UAVs/Drones by disabling their essential https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis software, rendering them completely non-functional and incapable of being commissioned for their intended activities. The drones, which were deployed in the Swamitva Project for SOI-Lucknow, were brought to an abrupt standstill due to petitioner-Company locking of the Drone's Software. Furthermore, the remaining drones were actively engaged in a Rs.70 Crore project, in partnership with the Government of Odisha. The petitioner-Company's actions inflicted serious hindrance, which compelled the Government of Odisha to incur substantial additional expenses and caused the complainant's company to be blacklisted by the Government of Odisha in all tenders. When the complainant's company approached the petitioner-Company for redressel, they made unscrupulous allegations and justified their acts of unauthorizedly accessing the drones and illegally disabling the same to cause unlawful loss. A legal notice was sent to petitioner-Company on 20.06.2023 for which, the petitioner-Company sent reply notice on 05.07.2023, admitting to the above act and threatening to initiate false proceedings against the complainant's company. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Therefore, the second respondent lodged a complaint and based on which, the FIR in Crime No.235 of 2023 came to be registered.

4.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that Section 420 IPC deals with whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, but in the present case, it is the 1st petitioner-Company who has delivered drones to 2nd respondent and a perusal of the entire charge sheet would make it evident that there is no single allegation that would remotely attract the ingredients of cheating. Further, Section 43 of the IT Act has been wrongly been invoked. The 1st petitioner-Company is the sole owner of the software used to operate the drones and thus, the 1st petitioner-company has the right to deactivate the license key of the subject drones. This fact is duly corroborated by the Terms of Purchase. Further, Section 43 of the IT Act only punishes the denial of access if it is done without the permission of the owner or person in charge of a computer, computer system or computer network. Thus, the 1st petitioner being the owner and in-charge of the drone software, the said provision is wholly inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances.