1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The Revision Application is filed by the original complainant challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, on 13.8.2008 whereby he allowed the Revision Application Nos.449 of 2007, 460 of 2007 and 853 of 2007 filed by the different accused persons/respondents and whereby he set aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai on 18.1.2007 of issuance of process against all the accused persons for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 403 read with Sec. 120B of IPC.

3. To appreciate the controversy, it will be useful to state the facts in brief. For the sake of convenience, the revision applicant may be called as complainant and the respondents as the accused persons. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are original accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively while accused Nos. 3 to 6 are original accused Nos. 4 to 7 respectively. The complainant is a Chairman of Vmoksha Technologies Ltd., a company incorporated in Mauritius (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"). The Company had certain subsidiaries by name "Vmoksha Technologies Pvt. Ltd." registered at Bangalore, "Vmoksha Technologies Inc. USA" and "Vmoksha Technologies Pvt. Ltd.", Singapore. Accused No.5 - Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd. is registered in India and has its head office at Chennai. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 are the Chairman and Managing Director respectively of the said accused 5 Company. The complainant had 50% shareholding in Vmoksha Technologies and the accused No.4 Pawan Kumar and his family members had also 50% holding in the said Company. Accused No.4 Pawan Kumar was also the Chief Executive Officer of the Company. On 28.1.2006, his 50% holdings were transferred to the complainant. Accused No.1 is State Bank of Mauritius Ltd., while accused No.2 was situated at Mumbai. Accused No.3 was looking after the Chennai Branch of the accused No.1 Bank. The shareholders of the Company decided to sell the Company's subsidiaries in India, USA and Singapore and the task of identifying a prospective buyer was entrusted to M/s. Price Waterhouse Coopers, a firm of Chartered Accountants. Said M/s. Price Waterhouse Coopers identified accused No.5 as a potential buyer. After a series of negotiations, on 11.5.2005, a Share Purchase Agreement was executed between the Company and various other confirming parties on one hand and accused Nos.6 and 7 in their respective capacity as Chairman and Managing Director of accused No.5. As per the said agreement, accused No.5 acquired Company's Indian, USA and Singapore subsidiaries for a consideration of US$ 19 million including an earn out of US$ 4 million to be paid to accused No.4 Pawan Kumar, the then CEO and he was to continue to work as CEO for the Company's said subsidiaries even after sale. The balance amount of US$ 15 million was to be paid to the shareholders of the Company as a consideration of the said transaction. Out of this consideration amount, some amount was to be paid to Tapan Garg and Madhuri Garg, son and wife of the accused No.4 Pawan Kumar respectively for their holdings and the amount of US$ 13,395,519.13 was to be paid to the complainant and other shareholders and as eventually the 50% share of accused No.4 Pawan Kumar was also taken over by the complainant and his family, whole of that amount was to come to the complainant. As accused No.5 was not in a position to make payment of the whole of the consideration amount in cash immediately, it had agreed to make payment after 18 months. However, it was also agreed that initially, accused No.5 would make payment of US$ 15 million to the sellers and the sellers would pay back the said amount to accused No.5 by subscribing to redeemable preference shares for the equal amount and the said shares would be redeemed by accused No.5 after 18 months by making payment. Thus, initiall