R.D. Kothari, J.

1. This group of four petitions arising out of three complaints filed by the complainant. These three complaints are filed by the Director of the company i.e. I-serve Systems Pvt. Ltd. The applicant in this group of petitions prays to quash these complaints. Since the parties are almost similar, all these four petitions were taken up for hearing together and decided by this common judgment. Learned Advocates for the parties have made submissions on these four petitions.

2. Few relevant facts are, thus; Complainant's company said to have engaged in business of building construction and manufacturing high security doors. The Company is in U.K. say of the complainant in each of the three complaints may be briefly referred. In complaint registered as I-C.R. No. 222 of 2007 at Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad, complainant alleges that accused No. 1 i.e. Manubhai Varsani was formerly working in the complainant's company as Commercial Director. That he has resigned w.e.f. 30-6-2006. The complainant's company had received the order from one Eugena Ltd. for manufacturing 35 doors. It is the say of the complainant that while fulfilling the said order, accused No. 1 has got prepared 7 additional doors in the name of Eugena Ltd. At the time of making payment, it came to the notice of the company that Eugena Ltd. has not given order for 7 additional doors. Then, on 5-2-2007, complainant received one e-mail from accused No. 1. The said e-mail along with photographs sent by accused No. 1 about his new office opened at Sarkhej-Gandhinagar Highway, Opp. Iscon Mall, Baleshwar Square. It was in the name of M.S. Business Center. It is the say of the complainant that seeing the photograph in e-mail sent by the accused No. 1, it came to the notice of the complainant that doors shown in that office are the doors of the complainant's company. Hence, this complaint of theft.

Second complaint is filed against two accused, who were formerly associated with the complainant's company wherein, accused No. 2 is Manubhai Varsani, who is also accused in the above-referred complaint. Therein, in substance, the allegations are of theft of data by the accused. It is alleged that one agreement of £ 2,73,000/- was entered into with M/s. Silchester Estate Contract. That data relating to said company was stolen by the accused and that is how it was removed from computer system of the complainant's company. It is the say of the complainant that thereby, the accused have caused great economic loss to the complainant's company. The said complaint is for offence under Secs. 415, 420, 424, 405, 409 read with Sec. 120B of I.P.C.

The 3rd complaint is filed on 28-5-2009. It is filed against Manubhai Varsani, who is common accused in all the three complaints. In short, it is the say of the complainant that accused has committed theft of letterhead of the complainant's company and thereafter, has committed forgery by writing a letter in the name of the complainant. The said complaint is filed for offence under Secs. 379, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C.

3. Heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. J.M. Panchal for the applicant, after briefly referring the facts of the case, has submitted that complaint about theft of doors has no substance. It was submitted that as per the say of the complainant himself, theft has taken place at U.K. It is also submitted that for the alleged theft taken place at U.K., complaint cannot be lodged in India. Further, it was submitted that considering the allegation made by the complainant - before the accused can be held liable for the theft, complainant has to prima facie show the occurrence of theft. In the present case, say of theft even prima facie not believable. Further, it was pointed out that company has also filed complaint in this regard in U.K. There is a reference to this effect in complaint itself. That being so, for the same offence, complainant cannot pursue