Point of law : In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence

ORDER :

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No.199 of 2018 pending before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 384 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:

Petitioners 1 and 3 being brothers are accused 1 and 3, petitioner No.2 is the close acquaintance of petitioners 1 and 3, in the proceedings before the trial Court. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. Petitioners 1 and 2 are partners of M/s Design 55 Advertisement Limited Liability Partnership Firm ('Firm' for short). Pursuant to constitution of the partnership firm, petitioners 1 and 2 carried on the business of advertisement through hoardings, marketing etc. in furtherance to the objectives of the Firm.

3. The 2nd respondent who was an acquaintance of the petitioners, approached the 1st petitioner and requested to provide him employment in the firm which the petitioners contend that it was a request on account of the complainant facing financial difficulties. After repeated requests with regard to employment, the petitioners resolved not to give employment to the complainant but to enter into business with the complainant of contracting for the firm and would be paid commission based upon the service the complainant would render. The complainant agreed to the terms and conditions stipulated in such contract and later, the petitioners began to utilize the services of the complainant by paying him from the account of the Firm.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that on account of acquaintance of the complainant with them, the complainant requested the petitioners to lend money for purchase/construction of a house property. The petitioners appear to have lent money. It is the further case of the petitioners that the money was made over to the account of the father of the complainant one Mr. Joyappa who was a coffee planter on the specific request of the complainant. The complainant had agreed to repay the entire amount borrowed within a short time. All these transactions were never reduced into writing. It is in furtherance of the aforesaid fact, the petitioners transferred a sum of Rs.44,16,604/-to the account of the father of the complainant at intermittent intervals.

5. The complainant, as undertaken, did not repay the amount that was taken. Not stopping at that, the petitioners contend that all the Firm’s clients and vendors were being usurped by the complainant thereby diluting the business of the Firm of the petitioners. It is then the complainant was confronted with these allegations and also a demand was made to repay the amount that was taken. When the relationship between the complainant and the petitioners turned sore, the contract was discontinued with the complainant.

6. On the complainant coming to know the act of discontinuance of his services, it is the case of the petitioners that the complainant began to approach the clients of the Firm of the petitioners and maligned the reputation of the Firm which also led to several correspondences between the petitioners Firm and its clients. It is thereafter, the complainant sent an e-mail on 13-04-2018 demanding payment of Rs.52,90,000/-under various heads which included salary and other incidentals. The complainant also caused a legal notice on 20-04-2018 demanding a sum of Rs.90,90,000/-. The complainant claimed to be a partner of the Firm of the petitioners and also claimed that he had paid Rs.40,00,000/-as investment to the petitioners Firm through his father which had been returned to his father by the petitioners.

7. The petitioners caused a reply notice on 07-05-2018 denying all the claims and allegations of the complainant and also brought to the notice of the complainant that he had work