THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5221 of 2009 BETWEEEN: P.Venkatesh Naidu, S/o. P.P.Rama Naidu … Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5221 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C. in Crime No.135 of 2009 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. The petitioner/accused worked as Deputy General Manager (marketing) in Fortune Infra Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is the Chairman and Managing Director of the said company. The company has been doing real estate business by developing sites and constructing plots. The company employed several marketing agents for the purpose of developing its business. One among such agents is S.Vijay Kumar. Alleging that the petitioner engaged himself in acts which are detrimental to the reputation and peculary interest of the company, the company removed the petitioner from the post of Deputy General Manager (marketing). Subsequently, the 2nd respondent launched report with the police alleging that the petitioner in collusion with S.Vijay Kumar was inflating the commission amounts to be paid to Vijay Kumar with an intention to share the same without the company’s knowledge and that the petitioner misguided customers directly approaching the company by advising them to pursue the transaction through a marketing agent in order to get better price and service and that the petitioner was referring them to Vijay Kumar for closing the transaction and that in this manner, the petitioner gained huge amount of money as per his understanding with Vijay Kumar and other agents. Subsequently, the company is stated to have made enquiry and called upon Vijay Kumar to explain his activity. According to the 2nd respondent, the company suffered due to inflated commission payment to the extent of Rs.10,40,595/-. The company is continuing its dialogue and interaction with Vijay Kumar with regard to his entitlement of the commission amount to the above extent. While so, after removal from service, the petitioner is stated to have made a claim with the company by giving a notice on 25.11.2008 claiming further incentive/commission to himself to an extent of Rs.40,00,000/- Thereafter, the present report was given to the Police on 20.03.2009. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that with an intention to arm-twist the petitioner with regard to his claim of Rs.40,00,000/- from the company, the 2nd respondent launched this report with the Police even though the alleged activity does not constitute any offence under Section 420 I.P.C. Even in the report, it is stated by the 2nd respondent that the activity adopted by the petitioner when he was in service was unethical. When the company has employed marketing associates/agents for developing marketing of plots and when the company has agreed to pay incentive/commission even to the employees including the persons working in the marketing department, claim made by the petitioner towards commission either for himself or through a marketing associate/agent Vijay Kumar cannot be said to be illegal. Because the company did not like the activity of the petitioner, the company had chosen to remove the petitioner from service. Even thereafter, the company intended to make witch-hunting against the petitioner who was removed from service. The 2nd respondent could not make out any dishonest intention much less dishonest inducement on the part of the petitioner in the alleged transactions. Even if the alleged transactions are true, they were done within the scope of activity in the marketing circles within the agreed terms between the company and the agents or associates in marketing. It cannot be a subject matter of a crime under I.P.C. 2. It is further alleged that the petitioner was indulging in spreading false rumours about the company and Board of Directors to the existing and prospective customers by undertaking personal visits and making phone calls. The Police did not invoke any provisions of I.P.C. against the petitioner for this alleged activity. When a company employed marketing agents, they would inflate reputation of the company even though the company does not deserve such reputation. When the company has removed a person from its service, then it is natural for the removed employee to speak something against the activities and loopholes in the company. 3. It is finally alleged that the petitioner resorted to making threats of physical harm to Board of Directors through anti social elements. The 2nd respondent did not name the directors who received such threats, the mode and manners by which such threats were hurled and also did not name the anti social elements, which hurled the alleged threats. On a total reading of the report filed by the 2nd respondent with the Police, it is evident that this is nothing but a corporate war launched against its erstwhile employee who made huge claim towards incentive/commission from the company. There are absolutely no bonofides much less bases in the report given by the 2nd respondent to the Police. Even if the allegations are taken on their face value, those allegations do not attract the offences for which this crime is registered by the Police. 4. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing FIR in Crime No.135 of 2009 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 03.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5221 of 2009 DATED: 03.03.2011 ysk