IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH [15TH] DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.5870 of 2007 & Crl.P.No.6107 of 2007 Crl.P.No.5870 of 2007: Between: M/s Dhandapani Finance Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, S.P.Road, Secunderabad & another … Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents Crl.P.No.6107 of 2007: Between: M/s Dhandapani Finance Ltd., rep. by its Director, Chennai-17 … Petitioner And: The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.5870 of 2007 & Criminal Petition No.6107 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: These two criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash further proceedings in Cr.No.179 of 2007 of Maredpalle PS. 2. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.6107 of 2007 is A.1 and the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5870 of 2007 are A.2 and A.3. As the two matters arise out of the same crime i.e., Cr.No.179 of 2007 of Maredpalle PS, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against A.1 to A.3 alleging offences under Sections 379, 420, 468 IPC read with 34 and 471 IPC. According to the complainant, he purchased machinery from A.P.S.F.C., and he took loan of Rs.10,00,000/- in the year 2005 from A.1 by furnishing immoveable property as security and he issued 24 post-dated cheques of Rs.48,000/- each and the accused also took signatures on blank papers. A.1 and A.2 also issued telegraph notice on 27.09.2006 demanding payment of arrears of installments and the complainant paid Rs.95,000/-. It is further alleged that on 10.11.2006, A.1 and A.2 illegally and unauthorisedly seized the machinery of the complainant at Jabalpur. The complainant filed suit OS No.136 of 2007 before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad for mandatory injunction for release of the vehicle, for damages and for permanent injunction. The accused filed counter claiming that they were entitled to seize the machinery under the terms of hire purchase agreement. The complaint was forwarded to the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. Aggrieved by the same, the present petitions are filed. This Court by order dated 8.01.2007 while granting interim stay of arrest of A.2 and A.3 directed that the investigation can go on. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the dispute is civil in nature and filing of the complaint is only an abuse of process of Court. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant on the other hand submits that the accused illegally and without any authority committed theft of machinery and sold the same in favour of A.3 without any intimation or notice to the complainant. 5. As the investigation was directed to be continued in the matter, by now the investigation must have been completed and report also filed before the Court. At this stage, the question of quashing further investigation of the matter does not arise. In the event of police filing any charge sheet against the accused, it is open to the accused to avail other remedies provided under law, including the plea of discharge. In the circumstances, it is held that there are no valid or sufficient grounds to quash further proceedings in Cr.No.179 of 2007 of Maredpally PS, at this stage. 6. In the result, both the criminal petitions are dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier, stands vacated. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 15.07.2010 bss