IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8268 & 8516 of 2008 Crl.P.No.8268 of 2008: Between: Bathi Krishna Kumari ..... PETITIONER/A1 And The State of A.P. rep.by the Public Prosecutor and another .....RESPONDENTS Crl.P.No.8516 of 2008: Between: M.Venkata Chandra Shekar ..... PETITIONER/A2 And The State of A.P. rep.by the Public Prosecutor and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8268 & 8516 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC.No.225 of 2008 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, which Court has taken cognizance against the petitioners/A1 & A2 basing on the charge sheet filed by the Sub- Inspector of Police, P.S.Cyberabad in Cr.No.1273/2007 for the offences punishable under Secs.403, 406 & 420 of IPC. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the 2nd respondent/De facto complainant Firm is manufacturer and dealer in detergent powder and soaps; that the petitioner/A1 entered into an agreement dated 31.08.2006 with the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant Firm to market its products on payment of 3% commission; that the petitioner/A1 has deposited Rs.5,00,000/- towards security with the 2nd respondent-Firm; that while the transactions were moving smoothly, about a year back, the 2nd respondent-Firm had noticed some discrepancies in the accounts and to that effect, a meeting was convened on 03.10.2007 at Visakhapatnam, and it was noticed that the petitioner/A1 and her sales manager (A2) have misappropriated an amount of Rs.18,07,533/- of the 2nd respondent-Firm; that on 15.10.2007 the 2nd respondent-Firm sent a demand notice to the Petitioner/A1 and the same was not complied with, and therefore, the learned senior counsel contends that the matter is of civil nature, however, the same was conveniently converted into a criminal case and hence, the criminal proceedings in the above referred calendar case are to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner/A1 and her sales Manager (A2) have misappropriated huge amounts of the 2nd respondent-Firm. He further submits that the matter is pending trial before the trial Court, and at this stage, the proceedings in the above referred calendar case cannot be quashed. After hearing both sides and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and since the petitioner/A1 and her Sales Manager (A2) are alleged to have committed serious offence of misappropriation of funds of the 2nd respondent-Firm, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 & A2 in the above referred calendar case by invoking the inherent powers under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C These Criminal Petitions are accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in these Criminal Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. However, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the calendar case, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. ____________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J Dated: 17.11.2011 Dsr