MUMBAI: In a reprieve for Gautam Singhania, controlling director of Raymond Constrained, and five many others, the Bombay substantial courtroom (HC) on Tuesday stayed investigation and restrained any coercive techniques against them in a scenario registered against them in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (UP), for allegedly cheating a proposed franchisee.

4 workforce of Raymond Ltd, a community confined business, its previous chief government officer Sanjay Behl and Singhania petitioned the HC to quash the FIR in UP which they submitted was “fake and frivolous”. Their option plea was to transfer investigation to the Thane police commissioner in Maharashtra as “no result in of motion has arisen” in UP.

The transaction of a proposed appointment of a franchisee of the business in Lucknow was terminated last September, said their petition argued by counsel Shyam Dewani. It said the FIR was registered against them and 4 many others, more than six months afterwards in March, by the partner of proposed franchisee, allegedly “with a perspective to harass and humiliate”.

A bench of justices R D Dhanuka and V G Bisht also listened to added community prosecutor V B Konde-Deshmukh for Maharashtra and issued a see to the state of Uttar Pradesh and the complainant.

The bench adjourned the issue to September 22 and said, “Till upcoming day, there shall be advertisement-interim relief in terms of pleas to continue to be the investigation into the Lucknow FIR and to direct UP police not to just take any coercive techniques against them or pursue a July seven see summoning them to show up at the police station in Lucknow.”

The petition said that soon after a letter of intent was despatched by a business agent from Thane, Maharashtra, to a proposed franchisee in Lucknow for ‘The Raymond Shop’, soon after regional multi-manufacturer stores objected to the business, the letter of intent was cancelled. The FIR alleged that the informant’s spouse had received a five-storey shop in Lucknow on rent for Rs one.75 lakh for each thirty day period.

The petition refuted all allegations and contended that the rent agreement was for Rs eighty,000 but an “illegal need” was elevated when the business offered to make good the costs incurred for renovating the shop.