The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

registration of a crime in crime No.15/2022 for offences

punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri K.G.Kamath, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Prateek Chandramouli,

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts that leads the petitioner to this Court in this

petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

- 3 -

The petitioner is a Medical Transcriptionist and claims to

have possessed more than three decades of experience in the

field of medical transcription and further claims to have

registered under various authorities with regard to such

experience of the petitioner. It is averred in the petition that,

about a year ago, the petitioner had opened a diagnostic centre

offering various services of diagnostics like, X-ray, ultrasound,

ECG, blood investigation and echo cardiogram. The petitioner

has certain staff working under him who are technicians,

radiologists conducting ultrasound scans, X-rays and generating

reports at the diagnostic centre. The petitioner was earlier an

employee of the diagnostic centre run by the second

respondent for more than two decades. Later, the petitioner

branched out of second respondent and opened his own

diagnostic centre, right opposite to the diagnostic centre of the

second respondent, under whom the petitioner was an

erstwhile employee.

4. In the month of May, 2022, it transpires that a

complaint is sought to be registered by the second respondent

against the petitioner, concerning delivery of a courier to the

- 4 -

diagnostic centre of the petitioner. The petitioner was

summoned to the police station and a non-cognisable report

was sought to be made upon the complaint as it was a courier

which was wrongly delivered to the office of the petitioner.

Later, the courier was returned back to the professional courier

office by his staff. All these actions were done by the staff of

the petitioner. The further allegation in the complaint is that,

the complainant had placed an order for supply of 3TLD

radiation badges with the Chennai based company and the

value of the badges was Rs.5,000/- and the consignment was

wrongly delivered by the professional courier to the diagnostic

centre of the petitioner instead of the complainant9s. The

complainant later appears to have contacted the courier only to

come to know that it had been delivered to the diagnostic

centre owned by the petitioner on 13.05.2022. Therefore, the

complaint is lodged for the offences punishable under Sections

419, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC. A crime comes to be

registered in crime No.15/2022, based upon the said complaint.

It is the registration of the crime that drives the petitioner to

this Court in the subject petition.

- 5 -

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

it was a wrongful receipt of a courier by the staff of the

petitioner9s diagnostic centre and even according to the

complaint, the items in the courier were costing about

Rs.5,000/- and such wrongful delivery of a courier would

happen day in and day out in a city like Bangalore. He would

submit that the professional couriers have also accepted the

responsibility of the consignment to be delivered to the

complainant. Based upon this trivial incident, on the ground

that the petitioner had opened the diagnostic centre only in

competition with the second respondent, the crime comes to be

registered. No offence as alleged under Sections 419, 420, 468

or 471 of the IPC can even be seen to be present in the case at

hand, is the emphatic submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 3 complainant would seek to contend that the

petitioner had a responsibility not to accept the courier, which

was not addressed his diagnostic centre. Further, the staff

have signed and accep