1. This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.142 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry and to quash the same.

2. The petitioners herein are the accused 1 to 3 in the private complaint filed by the respondent herein in C.C.No.142 of 2012 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry, for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 406, 409 r/w 120(b) IPC.

3(1) It is the case of the respondent herein/complainant that they are engaged in the business of database services, providing quality knowledge based back end works (KPO) and they are having business operations in Pudhucherry and Chennai. The 1st petitioner/A1 is a US based company. The 2nd petitioner/A2 viz., Mahesh Naithani is the Chairman & CEO of the 1st petitioner/company. The 3rd petitioner/A3 is the Executive Vice President of the 1st petitioner/company. During the course of business of the respondent, the 1st petitioner-company represented by the petitioners 2 & 3 approached the respondent and evinced their willingness to enter into a partnership with the respondent to utilize their service, software development capabilities in India. Believing the rapport on the 1st petitioner-company, the respondent entered into a Professional Master Service Agreement (first agreement) with the 1st petitioner/company on 01.05.2009 at Chennai.

3(2) As per the said agreement, the respondent has to provide databased services, for which the petitioners would make agreed payments as per the invoices raised by the respondent. Under the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the respondent is bound to provide service/manpower/development service as per the requirements of the 1st petitioner-company and the respondent is entitled for fees and service charges. The respondent had been meticulous in providing the services to the petitioners. The respondent raised various invoices totalling USD 316, 513 as on November-2010. But, the 1st petitioner-company has paid only a sum of USD 207,558.05. The 1st petitioner-company failed to pay the balance amount of USD 108,954.95 and evaded to make the payment inspite of repeated reminders by the respondent/complainant to all the petitioners.

3(3) While so, after constant follow up by the respondent/complainant, the 1st petitioner-company entered into an agreement (second agreement) on 01.12.2010, whereby it was agreed by the 1st petitioner-company to settle the liability of USD 108,954.95 by way of six monthly installments between December 2010 and May 2011. But, by taking advantage of the subsequent agreement dated 01.12.2010 (second agreement), the petitioners placed further orders to the respondent. Accepting the same, the respondent has also provided services to the 1st petitioner-company for the subsequent orders without any demand. But, in contrary to the expectation and in total violation of the repeated assurances of the petitioners, they paid only USD 24,735 to the respondent during January-May 2011, as against USD 122,997, which was accepted by the petitioners as per the second agreement dated 01.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioners evaded the payment inspite of repeated reminders. Pinching salt to the injury, the petitioners hatched conspiracy with the competitors of the respondent by giving the same work to them.

3(4) The petitioners with the ulterior motive to deceive the respondent, allured the respondent to provide service on credit basis. On believing the posture of the petitioners/accused, the respondent/complainant strained their nerve to provide service to the petitioners and invested huge sum to satisfy the requirements of the petitioners. Taking advantage of the trust posed, the petitioners clandestinely extracted the services of the respondent and dragged the payments in the pretext of one or the other. Ultimately, the petitioners/accused changed their colour, stopped all the transactions with the respondent and switch on to the competit