The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, and evidence should be examined at the trial stage.

1. The petition is filed seeking a direction to call for the records in C.C.No.5353 of 2009 on the file of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

2. The respondent filed a private complaint under Sec.200 CR.P.C against the petitioner and one another for the alleged offence punishable under Secs.409, 468, 471 IPC and 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act 2000.

3. The allegations by the complainant in a nutshell giving rise to a private complaint is as follows:

4. The complainant is a private limited company and they are the manufacturers of Polyester moulding compound, sheet moulding compound and dough moulding compound and they are the manufacturer and supplier of various compounds and components for electrical and automobile industries.

5. The petitioner is one of the executive directors of the Company. He was in charge of unit C of the complainants company.

6. The petitioner started a company named "Devi Consultancy Services". The petitioner has given the address of Unit C of the complainant company as that of the said Devi Consultancy. He has also created a website (www.devidcs.com) and has shown the said consultancy as a division of the complainants company and went to an extent of stating that it is a division of the complainants company and has appointed one Michael D. Jackson as in charge for Devi consultancy for North America. He had also transferred a sum of Rs.5,57,207/-from the accounts of the complainants company to the above Michael D. Jackson and acted against the interest of the Company. The main contention of the complainant is that he had projected the Devi Consultancy Services as if it is a division of complainants company doing the same business and tried to mislead the customers of the complainants company in order to affect the business of the company.

7. According to the complainant, the petitioner has also created and transmitted false electronic records with dishonest and fraudulent intention and thereby committed forgery, creation of false documents, showing false information and electronic data as genuine and also for dishonestly transferring the funds of the complainants company to third party.

8. The complaint was taken on file by the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.5353 of 2009. The accused is before this Court filing the present application to quash the above said proceedings on various grounds.

9. According to the petitioner, Devi Consultancy Services was mooted to be formed as a Division of Devi Polymers (complainants company), especially as a marketing strategy. At no point of time, Devi ultancy services was treated as a separate entity. Even in the Board Meeting held in the month of March 2009, the petitioner had informed the Board of Directors about Devi Consultancy services and its activities. In the initial stage, one M/s Easy Link who were in management of web page of Devi Polymers was requested to design a web page for Devi Consultancy services and the professional services charges were also given to them by the Directors of Devi Polymers. Due to the efforts of the petitioner, the complainants company was able to secure foreign businesses which runs to crores of rupees and therefore, Devi Consultancy Services was approved by the Directors of the complainants company. There was a difference of opinion among the directors of the complainants company and a false complaint is given. Devi Consultancy is not a separate division and there is no forgery or creation of false documents and no one was cheated and therefore, prima-facie there is no evidence to take cognizance of any offence against the petitioner.

10. Mr.V. Karthik, for M/s T.S. Gopalan and Co., elaborated on the above grounds and would state that the complaint is misconceived. The learned counsel pointed out that it has been accepted that Devii Consultancy Service is a division of Devi Ploymers. The learned counsel relied on various letters