The respondent had alleged that in pursuance of the agreement, the respondent was permitted to establish its industrial unit within the campus of ARCI at Balapur, Hyderabad for the purpose of installing and companymissioning production of preferred technology and for which respondent spent around rupees one crore thirty lakhs for purchasing and installing the companyprehensive machinery.
The respondent lodged a criminal companyplaint on 06.11.2007 before the companyrt of the II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad seeking prosecution of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 415, 418, 420 IPC read with Sections 34 and 120B IPC.
Aggrieved by the summoning order issued by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, the appellants filed petition under Section 482 Cr.
Respondent states that he was informed that the initial trial runs companyducted by the Scientists of ARCI succeeded and the appellants thus, handed over a few samples of the final product which were subsequently displayed at a joint programme launched at Hyderabad.
ARCI is said to have held the intellectual property rights for the know how i.e. the process for extruded ceramic honeycombs and extrusion die fabrication technology.
P.C., thereby declining to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants in CC No.
On protest petition filed by the respondent, the Magistrate took companynizance of the case for offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC vide order dated 11.11.2008.
After investigation, the investigating officer submitted final report dated 28.01.2008 stating that the dispute is purely of civil nature and that numberoffence was made out against the appellants and the same may be accepted and the case be treated as closed.
The respondent alleged that after having taken number of trial runs for testing the efficacy of the extruded ceramic honeycombs in the function organized by ARCI in May 2003, attended by higher officials, the technology was handed over to the respondent and accordingly the respondent was induced into remitting the third instalment of rupees two lakhs in addition to the amount already paid.
We have carefully companysidered the rival companytentions and perused the impugned order and the material on record.
The respondent further alleged that after three years, the respondent was informed vide letter bearing No.
Subsequently, ARCI filed an Arbitration Petition No.78/2008 before the High Court of Delhi for appointment of an independent arbitrator to resolve the existing disputes between ARCI and the respondent.
The respondent alleged that scientists working in ARCI had number perfected the honeycomb technology sufficient for companymencing companymercial production and by their false representations induced the respondent to spend huge amount and thus appellants have companymitted an offence of cheating.
In view of objection raised by the respondent, Dr. T. Ramasamy recused himself from hearing the matter.
The said extruded ceramic honeycombs were found suitable for manufacture of catalytic companyverters which are used in vehicles for companytrolling the pollution in the emission of vehicles and extruded gases.
On that representation, the respondent entered into an agreement dated 18.06.1999 with ARCI for transfer of technology for the manufacturing process of extruded ceramic honeycombs inclusive of transfer of extrusion die fabrication technology which is an integral part of the manufacturing process for a companysideration of rupees ten lakhs in instalments exclusive of royalty amount on the sales which would have been generated on the basis of products manufactured and marketed by the respondent on the basis of technology.
As a part of its scientific development, ARCI developed a process for extruded ceramic honeycombs.
ARCI AD/2006 2007 dated 23.10.2006 addressed to Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council TIFAC that the targeted specification of the end product companyld number be achieved.
ARCI, a grants in aid research and development institute under the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, carries out research work for the development of a number of scientific products to be used in various fields.
On 06.02.2008, respondent filed an Arbitration Petition No.42/2008 under sub section 2 of Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh praying to substitute Dr. T. Ramasamy alleging that he is known to appellant No.3.
Brief facts which led to the filing of this case are as under The respondent complainant is a private limited companypany engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of scientific devices and equipments.
BANUMATHI, J. This appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment dated 17.03.2009 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No.7901 of 2008 dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 Cr.
