IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.890, 894 and 895 of 2008 Between: K.Kesaiah and others … Petitioners And The State of A.P., and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.890, 894 and 895 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: - These three criminal petitions are filed to quash the crimes registered against A1 to A4 by the Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, “IPC”). The 2nd respondent/complainant who is an N.G.O. and running educational institution, lodged a complaint before the Magistrate under Section 190 r/w 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “Cr.P.C.”), alleging that A1 and A2 approached the complainant and promised to get grants-in-aid under the scheme of “Prevention of Alcoholism and substance (Drugs)” during the month of November, 2004 and also in April, 2006 and requested the complainant to arrange Rs.3 lakhs on the promise to sanction the said scheme to him and accordingly the complainant paid Rs.3 lakhs to A1 and A2, by depositing the amount through cheques, which was received and acknowledged by A3 on behalf of A1 and A2 in Crime No.54 of 2008, A4 on behalf of A1 in Crime No.52 of 2008. The Magistrate forwarded the said complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Saifadabad police registered the crime for the said offences. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners did not receive any monetary benefit through the said transaction and the 2nd respondent has been falsely implicated to blackmail the petitioners. When the transaction was made in April, 2006 what made the petitioners to file a complaint after lapse of two years is not known. The I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad has not referred the matter to the police, on which basis no crime has been registered and no offence has been made out from the allegations. Whether offence is made out or not is a matter, which can be known only during the course of investigation. The complaint allegations clearly discloses that A1 and A2 with fraudulent intention to commit the breach of trust in the capacity of Government officials and after being entrusted with the amount of Rs.6 lakhs and having got dominion over the same committed breach of trust along with A3 and A4 and misused the same for other purposes, by depositing the amount in the account of D.M. & H.O., Hyderabad, who was not intended for the said purpose. In view of the same, it is for the investigating agency to investigate the same and file a necessary report and if the investigation report does not disclose any offence against the petitioners, they are at liberty to avail the remedies available to them at that stage, but it is pre-mature to quash the proceedings now at the initial stage. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 1st July 2010 lmv