ORDER :

1. The present Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner company by one Shakti Kumar, [who is duly authorized to file the present petition by the Board of the petitioner-company vide Board of resolution dated 18.11.2014] to quash the complaint bearing C.C. No. 2726 of 2014 [filed under Sections 417, 418, 420, 406 and 422 read with 34 of the IPC] titled M/s Interlace India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Imatics Technologies Pvt. Ltd. pending before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai together with the summoning order dated 30.04.2014.

2. Facts of the case as averred by the petitioner:

2.1 A company namely, Ahmedabad Janmarg Limited [hereinafter referred to as ‘AJL’] had floated a request for proposal for development, implementation, operation, maintenance of integrated Transit Management System for Bus Rapid Transit System for the city of Ahmedbad (hereinafter referred to as ‘project’). In consequence, GMV Sistemas SAU [for brevity ‘GMV’] a company, having office at Madrid Spain and Vayam Technologies Limited [in short ‘Vayam’] a company having registered office at Newdelhi, jointly presented a proposal dated 02.04.2010, as a consortium, with Vayam, as a lead member and GMW, as the consortium partner. AJL vide a letter of acceptance dated 21.08.2010 offered to assign the project to the consortium subject to the terms and conditions including the formation of Special Purpose Vehicle [in short ‘SPV’] with GMV as a lead partner in such SPV.

2.2 Accordingly, SPV, namely, Vayam GMV Intelligent Transportation Pvt., Limited [hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’] was formed by and between GMV and Vayam for the execution of the project. As per the agreement between GMW and Vayam, the work related to the project is to be divided between them, as per their areas of specialisation. Accordingly, the payments received from AJL were to be transferred from one common account to separate accounts maintained by GMV and Vayam in accordance with the job performed by Vayam and GMV respectively. Vayam further sub-contracted a part of its work to third party, viz. Imatics Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as Imatics]/A.1 and the petitioner had not entered into any contract with either the respondent/complainant or Imatics. The payments to Imatics were to be made by Vayam under its contract from its separate account and the petitioner has no connection to the same. Accordingly, Imatics and the respondent/complainant entered into a contract dated 20.01.2011 for the execution of the supply order by the complainant to Imatics and the petitioner was not a party to the business agreement dated 20.01.2011, between Imatics and the Complainant.

2.3 Further, the purported payments were to be made to the complainant/respondent by A.1, in view of the contract dated 20.01.2011 and five cheques bearing no. 749488 dated 02.10.2011 for Rs. 6,42,96,791, Cheque No. 809794 dated 28.03.2012 for Rs. 50,00,000/- Cheque No. 80975 dated 29.03.2012 for Rs. 75,00,000/- Cheque No. 834652 dated 16.05.2012 for Rs. 4,82,22,593/- and Cheque No. 749489 dated 15.06.2012 for Rs. 4,82,22,593/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Chennai were issued by A.1 to A.4 to the complainant/respondent and the same were allegedly dishonoured, for which the complainant had initiated prosecution against accused 1 to 4. Another cheque bearing no. 661755 dated 17.08.2012 for Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was also issued by A.15 and that there is no allegation against the petitioner.

2.4 The respondent filed a detailed complaint before the police on 07.12.2012 narrating all the facts, which form part of the present complaint, but there is no allegation against the petitioner herein and the said complaint does not even mention the name of the petitioner or its Directors as accused persons. Upon failure of the police to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint dated 07.12.2012, the complainant/respondent filed its complaint dated 15.04.2014 bef