KARTHIK NARAYANAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the first respondent-State.

(2.) Perused the records. Petitioners have sought for quashing of Crime No.132/2016 and all further investigation thereon, pending on the file of the first respondent-police. As could be seen from the First Information Report, there are certain allegations against the first petitioner by the second respondent herein that they are the Directors of the Company namely, Ayon Global Education Services Private Limited, Bengaluru; that the first petitioner has collected a total sum of Rs.7,33,25,000/- for the purpose of investing the same in a particular project along with Accenture Software Company, Mumbai. It is the allegation that the said money was not invested as the said project had not seen the light of the day. Therefore, the complainant demanded his money back. But paying some amount, the first petitioner has been evading the payment of money. In fact, respondent No.2 has been paying the interest on the said amount. The matter not only stopped there, it is further alleged that when respondent No.2 demanded the said money, the first petitioner called him to Bengaluru Airport and while talking petition has stated that, one Ravi Rathod has taken the money and cheated the petitioners also. It is further alleged that while talking with each other, the first petitioner threatened the second respondent with dire consequences by showing a gun against the complainant and also threatened him that, if he demands the money, he would kill him, etc. However, with great difficulty, respondent No.2- complainant escaped from the clutches of the first petitioner and thereafter lodged a complaint.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the said FIR was filed with mala fide intention to prevent the first petitioner from going abroad and receiving some awards. It is contended that the parties have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, which is having an arbitration clause stating that if any dispute arises between the parties, the same has to be settled by way of arbitration. It is further contended that airport police have no jurisdiction to investigate the matter as the parties are not the residents of Bengaluru nor transaction has taken place within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru Airport Police.