HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.169 OF 2008 DATE:17-06-2010 BETWEEN Mamidana Sridhar & Another …Petitioners AND The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.169 OF 2008 ORDER: The only ground on which the petitioners seek to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.91 of 2007 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvuru for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 r/w 34 I.P.C. is that the cheque in dispute which was issued for supply of raw material as per the business agreement, dated 4.6.2005 which has been dishonoured, give rise to a civil action, but the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated. The second respondent-de facto complainant made a private complaint alleging the offences under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against the petitioners herein contending that the petitioners-accused approached the complainant and offered to supply minerals viz. Quartz or Calcite and accordingly, a written agreement was executed by the petitioner No.1 on 3.6.2005, wherein the petitioners-accused agreed to supply the minerals to the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.21,000/- to the first petitioner on 3.6.2005 towards advance, that he paid another amount of Rs.1,80,000/- by way of demand draft, dated 14.6.2005 and also a sum of Rs.9,000/- in cash. But, the petitioners failed to supply the minerals as agreed. Thus, the petitioners with a dishonest intention to cheat and deceive the de facto complainant, executed the agreement and failed to supply the raw material. The police after due investigation and after examining the complainant- second respondent herein laid the charge sheet stating that the petitioners-accused with a dishonest intention to cheat and deceive the complainant executed the agreement on 3.6.2005 and having received the amount failed to supply the raw material and committed the offences as alleged. Further the second petitioner issued the cheque with a dishonest intention to cheat and deceive complainant without having any sufficient funds in her bank account and therefore, both the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 r/w 34 I.P.C. The statement of the complainant recorded by the police has not been filed along with the material papers to know whether the complainant has acted upon the inducement made by the petitioners. In the absence of the same, it is difficult for this Court to quash the proceedings once the charge sheet filed by the police after due investigation prima facie discloses that the petitioners have executed the agreement and issued the cheque with dishonest intention to cheat and deceive the second respondent-complainant. Thus, no ground is made out to quash the impugned proceedings. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, petitioners are at liberty to file a discharge petition before the Court below if they are advised to do so. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JUNE 17, 2010 Tsr.