ORAL ORDER

The petitioner being accused No.1 in Crime No.447/2017 of Halasur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 filed the first information with Halasur Police Station against the petitioner and accused No.2 alleging commission of the offences as stated above. It is the specific contention of the informant that the petitioner-accused No.1 along with the co- accused induced him to invest an amount of Rs.3,16,075/- by promising to pay back good returns. Later even though the informant on many occasions requested the accused to pay back the amount, the accused had not returned the amount as agreed, but on the other hand, he started proclaiming that the informant had purchased some articles with the said amount. Therefore, it is stated that the accused has committed breach of trust and cheated the informant.

3. On the basis of first information, the FIR was registered and the investigation was undertaken. In the meantime, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.

4. Heard Sri. Arvind N., learned counsel for Sri.Mohankumar D., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is served but unrepresented. Perused the materials on record.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' for the following: REASONS

6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a written agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.2 in the matter of entering into the business. Respondent No.2 was making investment and since payment of the amount by respondent No.2 was in terms of the agreement, the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and no criminal offence could be made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced the copy of the agreement said to have entered into between the parties and contended that as per the business model, it is a chain link business called QNET, and respondent No.2 was permitted to purchase the products by paying the amount. If he enrolls some other customers keeping the chain unbroken, he will be entitled to have commission. Therefore, dealings between the parties are included in the terms of contract and hence no offence is made out.

7. I have gone through the terms and conditions of the agreement said to have entered into between the parties. The agreement is rather silent regarding the transactions between the two. There is a reference to QNET business which is said to be the chain link business. Clause 5 of the agreement reads as under:

"5. I have purchased product of QNET for my personal usage and for resale. Purchasing this product does not guarantee that I will earn any commissions/income. QNET pays commissions based on my hard work, performance and success in marketing activities."

8. As per the agreement, the petitioner is an independent representative (IR) and he is not an employee of QNET. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not give any explanation to condition No.5 extracted above, according to which respondent No.2 purchased the products from QNET for his personal usage and to resell. When such being the case respondent No.2 being entitled for commission based on his hard work, performance and success in marketing activities does not arise. Therefore, it is clear that the agreement produced before the Court is a self-serving one and prima-facie I am of the opinion that it is a net spread over to catch the innocent customers. There are prima-facie mater