HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2899 OF 2009 DATE:09-12-2011 BETWEEN: Venna Anitha and three others. - - - Petitioners/ A-1 to A-4. AND The State of A.P., Suryapet Rural P.S., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. - - - Respondents/ De-facto Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2899 OF 2009 DATED. 09-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/A-1 to A-4 (For short, ‘A-1 to A-4’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.36 of 2009, pending on the file of Suryapet (Rural) P.S. Nalgonda District registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 2. Whereas the petitioners are A-1 to A-4, the respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant in the Criminal Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Criminal Case. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : The de-facto complainant got poultry farm namely ‘Suguna Poultry Farm Limited’ which is pioneer in breeding and growing broiler chicks and supplying the chicks to farmers to grow ‘Day Old Broiler Chicks’ in different states in India. During the course of its business, the de-facto complainant had entered into an agreement with A-1 on 11-10-2007 and in pursuance of the said agreement, the de-facto complainant supplied 8000 chicks and so also necessary feed, medicines and equipment to A-1 for growing the chicks vide delivery challan No.4004, dated 06-12- 2008 through vehicle bearing registration No.AP-10-U-9420. As per the agreement, A-1 had to hand over the birds in fully grown up condition and unspent portion of the feed, medicines and equipment etc., were to be returned to the de-facto complainant after forty days from the date of supply of the chicks as per the market value existing by the date of lifting the birds from the poultry shed. Subsequent to that agreement, the Line Supervisor of the de-facto complainant’s farm used to visit the poultry shed of A-1 for giving necessary advises and precautionary measures for the well growth of the birds and further after forty days he visited A-1’s poultry shed and informed that the birds were fully grown up and fit for lifting and A-1 also expressed her willingness to lift the birds on the night of 12-01-2009. On 12-01-2009 at 08-00 p.m. the Line Supervisor along with the Marketing Executive of the de-facto complainant’s farm went to the poultry shed of A-1 for ascertaining the weight of the birds but shocked to see that birds, a portion of the feed, medicines and equipment were being loaded into a vehicle bearing registration No.AP-24-V-62 and they also found one lorry bearing registration No.AP-24-U-3114 already loaded with birds and the other said material and leaving the shed. Immediately, the Line Supervisor questioned A-1 about the lifting of the birds and material and then tried to contact its Branch Manager. Then she became furious and along with A-2 to A-4 abused the Line Supervisor in a filthy language and also pounced upon the Line Supervisor and beat him with hands and further kicked him and threatened him with dire consequences and necked out both the Line Supervisor and Marketing Executive from the premises. Hence A-1 to A-4 cheated the de-facto complainant by contravening the terms and conditions of the agreement with a view to gain wrongfully, A-1 to A-4 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-1 to A-4 that the matter is purely civil in nature and there is no specific allegation of fraud and dishonest intention on the part of A-1 to A-4 at the time of making the agreement and therefore no criminal liability is made out against A-1 to A-4 and the entire proceedings in Crime No.36 of 2009 are liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State has opposed the petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for? 7. it is pertinent to note here that there are clear allegations against A-1 to A-4 that after entering into the said agreement with the de-facto complainant the material in question was supplied to A-1 subject to the said conditions incorporated in the agreement but A-1 cheated the de-facto complainant by contravening the terms and conditions of the agreement and when questioned about it, A-1 along with A-2 to A-4 assaulted the men of the de-facto complainant in the said manner and threatened them with dire consequences. With regards to the question of cheating punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. the over all circumstances of the case are to be taken into consideration. Further, so far as Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. are concerned, there are clear allegations supported by record. Further, there can be both civil and criminal liability in respect of an issue, which can be determined in separate proceedings exhaustively. The complicity or otherwise of the accused cannot be decided by this Court in a petition filed seeking to quash the proceedings and what is to be seen here is whether there is material to prosecute them. The trial Court after adducing necessary evidence before it only can decide the questions. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter without being uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this petition. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:09-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2899 OF 2009 December 09, 2011 DSH