IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2624 OF 2008 Between: 1. S. Prasada Raju 2. Y. Ramesh ..... Petitioners AND 1. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. Anam Balasubramanayam ..... Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners to quash FIR.No.61 of 2008, on the file of East Tirupati Police Station. 2. The allegation in the complaint is that the second respondent purchased a TATA INDI CAB car bearing Registration No.AP 03V 9414 from the first petitioner under hire purchase agreement by obtaining finance of Rs.2,65,000/- from the first petitioner by entering into an agreement vide Contract No.HPA: CAR 800552, dated 30.05.2005. As per the repayment schedule, the second respondent has to repay the loan amount in 34 equal monthly installments of Rs.9,000/- each. For the said installments, the second respondent issued 34 post-dated cheques payable on 25th of every month commencing from June, 2005 to March, 2008. He issued 25 cheques of ICICI Bank Ltd., Tirupati, bearing Sl.Nos.6526 to 6550 and another 9 cheques of HDFC Bank Ltd., Tirupati, bearing Sl.Nos.205987 to 205995. Thereafter, as the account of the second respondent in the HDFC Bank Ltd., Tirupati, has been closed, he substituted 9 cheques of ICICI Bank Ltd., Tirupati, bearing Sl.Nos.950479 to 950487. Thereafter, he requested to return the 9 cheques of HDFC Bank Ltd., Tirupati, bearing Sl.Nos.205987 to 205995, but the petitioners have not returned the same and therefore, the complaint is lodged. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that due to some communication gap, the 9 cheques of HDFC Bank Ltd., Tirupati, bearing Sl.Nos.205987 to 205995, have been presented in the bank, but they were dishonoured; that as per the agreement vide Contract No.HPA: CAR 800552, dated 30.05.2005, it amounts to breach of contract which amounts to a civil liability; that it does not attract the criminal prosecution, and therefore, the continuation of the proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that though several times, the second respondent approached the petitioners and requested them to hand over the 9 cheques of HDFC Bank Ltd., Tirupati, bearing Sl.Nos.205987 to 205995, but they have not been returned to him, and therefore, a prima facie case of misappropriation has been made out. Hence, the question of quashing the complaint does not arise. 5. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be exercised by this Court when there is an abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the order of this Court. At the initial stage of the complaint, the Court has to see whether the allegations in the complaint make out a prima facie case of misappropriation and cheating. It is not required to decide whether the allegations are true or false. If the allegations in the complaint make out a prima facie case for a cognizable offence, then it is the statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation. That duty cannot be curtailed. 6. Prima facie, the allegation is that the second respondent handed over 9 cheques of HDFC Bank Ltd., Tirupati, bearing Sl.Nos.205987 to 205995, at the time of purchasing the TATA INDI CAB car bearing Registration No.AP 03V 9414. Thereafter, as the account of the second respondent in the HDFC Bank Ltd., Tirupati, was closed, he substituted 9 cheques of ICICI Bank Ltd., Tirupati, bearing Sl.Nos.950479 to 950487. Therefore, the petitioners are bound to return the 9 cheques of HDFC Bank Ltd., Tirupati, bearing Sl.Nos.205987 to 205995, but they have not done so and presented some of them for encashment. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that 9 cheques of HDFC Bank Ltd., Tirupati, bearing Sl.Nos.205987 to 205995, have been sent to the Head Quarters of Mumbai and therefore, they have not returned the same to the second respondent. The petitioners have to take steps immediately when the second respondent substituted 9 cheques of ICICI Bank Ltd., Tirupati, bearing Sl.Nos.950479 to 950487, to them, and get those 9 cheques of HDFC Bank Ltd., Tirupati, bearing Sl.Nos.205987 to 205995 from the Head Quarters of Mumbai, and hand over him. Instead of handing over the same, they kept the 9 cheques of HDFC Bank Ltd., Tirupati, bearing Sl.Nos.205987 to 205995, with them for the reasons best known to them. 8. No doubt, there is a thin line difference between civil cause of action and the criminal prosecution. Mere breach of contract may not lead to a criminal prosecution but at the same time, with a malafide intention, if the petitioners kept the 9 cheques of HDFC Bank Ltd., Tirupati, bearing Sl.Nos.205987 to 205995, with them, then certainly, it would give raise to a criminal prosecution. Whether the petitioners have intention or not, is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances after collecting the evidence by the police during the course of investigation. Therefore, at this stage, there are absolutely no grounds to quash the FIR. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 14th October, 2009. KL