THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7464 of 2009 DATED:16.09.2009 Between: G.Surender Reddy @ G.Surendranath Reddy and another .. Petitioners And Sri Somasekhar Chintalapudi and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7464 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the second respondent. No notice is being ordered to the first respondent, as the matter is being disposed of, at the stage of admission. The victim in the complaint which led to the registration of the crime states that the petitioners failed to pay the salary of the first respondent totalling to Rs.23,225/- + Rs.80,122/- for which the Director of the Company issued two cheques which bounced on presentation. Therefore, the first respondent alleged that the conduct of the petitioners against the orders of appointment and agreement amounts to cheating, as false promises for payment of money are not being complied. He specifically alleged that several employees are cheated by issuance of such cheques. What the petitioners contended is that they are innocent of the alleged offences and the allegations against the petitioners do not ex facie constitute an offence of cheating. The said plea may not be open to acceptance, as face value, as the statutory investigating agency has to still enquire into the presence or absence of the requisite dishonest or fraudulent intention or knowledge and the other necessary ingredients constituting an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. While the dispute may have both civil and criminal ramifications, the mere presence of the characteristics of a civil dispute will not exclude altogether the possibility of existence of a criminal offence arising out of the same facts and circumstances and the same conduct of the persons involved. When the employee claims to have been cheated by promises of payment of the amounts due towards which the bounced cheques were issued, it will be necessary in the interests of justice to permit the investigating agency to enquire into the allegations of the first respondent unhindered by any interim intervention in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, which is available only in the rarest of rare cases and which has to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection. Hence, it is not a fit case to act under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 16th September 2009 KH