THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.609 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.235 of 2007 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum- Special Court for cases under Labour Act & Factories Act, at Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 406 r/w 120-B I.P.C. The second respondent society filed the above complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging that on an application made under Section 20(5)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Court, Hyderabad – II vi d e application No.MW/51/96, dated 04.02.1999 for recovery of an amount of Rs.34,974/- from the complainant society, the Court below directed seizure of movable properties of the complainant society vide order dated 01.03.1999 in Crl.M.P.No.335 of 1999. In pursuance of the said order, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, North Zone with the assistance of Inspector conducted seizure of movable property on 24.03.1999 and entrusted the same to the petitioners herein (accused Nos.1 and 2) for safe custody. Subsequently, the complainant questioned the application of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Court, dated 04.02.1999 before this Court in W.P.No.6227 of 1999 and this Court by way of interim order suspended the application dated 04.02.1999. It is further stated that the movable properties i.e., chairs and tables, which were in safe custody of the petitioners, pursuant to seizure by the police on 24.03.1999, have been misappropriated by the petitioners. Therefore, the complainant filed the private complaint and the learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the police. Based on the same, the police registered a case vide FIR No.552 of 2005 for the offences under Section 406 r/w 120-B I.P.C. against the petitioners herein, and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet stating that the said properties were handed over to petitioners herein after conducting inventory on 24.03.1999 for safe custody and that the same were found missing in the second inventory conducted on 31.10.2005, which clearly establishes that the petitioners herein committed the offence of criminal breach. On filing the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued process. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the alleged incident took place, the first petitioner was acting as Deputy General Manager in Mumbai Branch, however, the specific act attributed by the second respondent society in the complaint shows that he filed the complaint to take vengeance against the petitioners. He also contended that the inventory report conducted in Crime No.552 of 2002 on 31.10.2005 also shows that chairs and tables etc., are available. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be charged for the offences under Section 406 r/w 120-B I.P.C and they are liable to be quashed. This Court, on 07.02.2008, while issuing notice to the second respondent, permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out personal notice to the second respondent, and granted interim stay of further proceedings for a limited period. Subsequently, though the interim stay was extended from time to time, as the learned counsel for the petitioners has not evinced any interest to serve the second respondent by tracing its correct address, this Court by order dated 08.07.2010 vacated the interim order. However, even till date the learned counsel for petitioners has not taken any steps to serve the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the President, who filed the complaint on behalf of the second respondent society, is not the President on the date when he filed the complaint, and therefore, he cannot initiate the proceedings. The complaint was filed by the President of the second respondent society as a juristic person but there was no authorization to him at the time of filing of the same. Whether the President of the second respondent society had authorization or not is a matter of evidence, and therefore, quashing of the complaint, at the threshold, is not warranted. Further, entrusting of the properties to the petitioners herein; allegation of misappropriation of properties and non-availability of properties when the second inventory was conducted on 31.10.2005, are also matters of evidence. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that it is not desirable to quash the impugned proceedings. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if the first petitioner files an application for dispensing with his presence, the lower Court can consider the same and pass appropriate orders. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 29.07.2010 va