The uncontroverted allegations in the complaint did not suggest that the ingredients required for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 had been spelt out. Allowing the FIR to be registered would be an abuse of the process of law and unfair to the petitioner.

F.M. Reis, J.

Heard Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Shirish Gupte, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent no. 3.

2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waive service.

3. The above Petition seeks, inter alia, to quash and set aside the FIR bearing no. 119 of 2016 registered with the Panjim Police Station for offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Briefly, it is the case of the Petitioner that she is the sole Proprietor of Sussanne Khan House of Design previously known as Sussanne Roshan House of Design, who has been in the business for the last fifteen years and has been engaged in several projects as a Design Company. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent no. 3 who is the Complainant, executed a written contract with the Petitioner thereby engaging the services of the Petitioner for providing services for professional designing of certain villas to be constructed in a property at Goa. The scope of the work and the terms and conditions thereof were clearly defined in the said contract. It is further her case that the Respondent no. 3 had alleged that relying upon the representations by the Petitioner and in terms of the said contract, a sum of Rs.1,87,92,022/- was paid to the Petitioner. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was not able to deliver the services as stipulated under the said Contract within the agreed time period, so also the services provided by her were not up to the mark and, as such, the Respondent no. 3 suspected whether the Petitioner was in fact an Architect or was trying to deceive the Respondent no. 3. It is further the case of the Petitioner that an Arbitration Petition bearing no. ARBP/1640/2015 was filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent no. 3. It is further contended that the Respondent no. 3 alleged that they repeatedly asked the Petitioner to provide her Architectural Registration Number so as to verify with the Council of Architecture whether the Petitioner was a qualified Architecture which, according to the Respondent no. 3, was not provided by the Petitioner. It is further contended that the Respondent no. 3 engaged the services of Mr. Rakesh Taneja, Advocate to inquire from the Council whether she was registered as an Architecture and by an email dated 07.09.2015, the said Advocate inquired from the concerned Department and in response to an email sent on 08.09.2015 stated that the Petitioner was not registered with the Council. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent no. 3 filed a written complaint with the Panjim Police Station against the Petitioner of allegations of misrepresentation and cheating and alleged that the Petitioner dishonestly induced in making the payment of Rs.1,87,92,022/- to the Petitioner. It is further contended that on account of such complaint, the Respondent no. 2 served a copy of thirty six questions to the Petitioner with regard to the project together with the criminal complaint filed by the Respondent no. 3 which the Petitioner answered to all the thirty six questions and made a brief representation of the actual facts pertaining to the dispute arising out of the said contract. It is further alleged that on 30.05.2016, an FIR came to be registered with the Respondent no. 2 for offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner has filed the above Petition to quash such FIR.

5. The Respondent no. 2 filed their say and contended that on 09.09.2015, the Respondent no. 3 filed a complaint against the Petitioner for misrepresentation and cheating and that on 15.09.2015, the Petitioner answered a questionnaire in the context of the complaint. It is further contended that the Petitioner