HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.5553 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is ﬁled by the petitioners- A.1 to A.3 under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in Cr.No.81 of 2010 of PS Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The 2nd respondent herein ﬁled complaint before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioners-A.1 to A.3, alleging the oﬀences under Sections 406, 408, 506 read with 120(B) IPC and the same was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the Police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report and accordingly, the police registered a case in Cr.No.81 of 2010 against the petitioners for the above said offences. 4. According to the complainant, she is a partner of M/s Suntech Prosthetic & Orthotic Centre, dealing with artiﬁcial limbs and the accused was also partner of the said ﬁrm and the complainant’s husband was looking after the aﬀairs of the ﬁrm on behalf of the complainant. The complainant pleads that in the year 2009, A.2 who is father of A.1 and A.3, who is family friend of the complainant, approached the complainant along with his son-A.3 seeking to participate in the business and oﬀered to make investment. Accordingly, the accused scrutinized the accounts of the ﬁrm and after being satisﬁed, oﬀered to invest Rs.6 lakhs in eight installments and entered into partnership deed dated 27.11.2009. In pursuance of the said partnership deed, a current account was opened in the name of the ﬁrm with joint powers of signing the cheques and subsequently, the accused invested Rs.2.75 lakhs and Rs.1.25 lakhs on various dates and the complainant issued receipts for the total amount of Rs.4 lakhs. She further alleges that the accused started raising disputes on ﬂimsy grounds and virtually excluded the complainant and her husband from the management of the ﬁrm and on 25.01.2010, they had a meeting in which the accused demanded to hand over the management of the ﬁrm with complete responsibilities of funds or else, the amount of Rs.6 lakhs with interest and proﬁts was to be paid to the accused. She alleges that, A.1 to A.3 made the complainant to sign certain documents for taking over the administration of the business and they have taken ﬁve blank cheques stating that they are required for the purpose of meeting contingent payments and expenses. Ever since 25.01.2010, A.1 to A.3 have been managing the complete business, including ﬁnancial aﬀairs. It is further alleged that on 01.03.2010, A.1 gave notice to the complainant, expressing his intention to retire from the partnership and sought settlement of the accounts. On 03.03.2010 A.1 gave another notice to the complainant with the date of 01.03.2010. Then the complainant addressed a letter dated 03.03.2010 to A.1 requesting him to complete all formalities to settle the accounts consequent on his retirement and also asked him to return the two cheques which were signed in blank and given in trust for meeting the business expenses. She addressed another letter to A.1 by registered post. The accused received both the letters, but did not return the cheques. She alleges that she received legal notice dated 13.03.2010 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’) issued on behalf of the complainant. According to the complainant, the cheque bearing No.834126 mentioned in the notice was entrusted to the accused for the purpose of meeting contingent expenses during her absence and the accused has resorted to breach of trust and dishonestly retained the cheques and put them to use with a view to make wrongful gain. The complainant also alleges collusion and conspiracy on the part of all the accused. It is further alleged that on 16.03.2010 at about 10.30 a.m. A.1 telephoned to the complainant and demanded immediate payment of Rs.6 lakhs and threatening that he is still in possession of other blank signed cheque bearing No.834125 and in the event of default in payment of amount, he would make use of the same for extracting huge amount like Rs.40 or Rs.50 lakhs and then ﬁle another prosecution under Section 138 of the Act and thereby resorted to criminal intimidation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complaint is frivolous and on 25.01.2010 the complainant and her husband did not agree for handing over the business to the accused, but issued a cheque for Rs.6 lakhs as ﬁnal settlement and the same was presented for encashment on 04.03.2010 as desired by the complainant and in the meanwhile, the complainant issued notice dated 03.03.2010 demanding return of the cheque and by the time the notice was served on the accused, the cheque was already dishonoured and therefore, A.1 had issued notice under section 138 of the Act. The petitioners would submit that after receiving the notice, the complainant without giving any reply, ﬁled the present complaint as a counter-blast. It is not disputed that subsequently, the accused ﬁled a private complaint on 12.04.2010 against the complainant under section 138 of the Act. 6. The question as to whether or not the business of the ﬁrm was handed over to the accused and whether or not the complainant issued cheque for Rs.6 lakhs towards ﬁnal settlement of the account of the accused and whether or not the complainant issued any blank cheques to the accused and two out of them remained with the accused and one of them was pressed into service by the accused with any dishonest intention and whether or not there was any entrustment of the cheques by the complainant with the accused and there was any breach of trust on the part of the accused in converting one of those two cheques into valuable security and getting the same dishonoured by the bank, are all matters to be considered during the course of investigation. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations can come out only after due investigation into the complaint. Prima- facie, speciﬁc allegations have been made in the complaint against the accused pertaining to the alleged oﬀences. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the question of misappropriation of any amounts does not arise, as the cheque for Rs.6 lakhs was dishonoured by the bank. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant would contend that the question of issuing cheque for Rs.6 lakhs as against investment of only Rs.4 lakhs and within a period of one month of the investment does not arise. 7. A perusal of the complaint would disclose that speciﬁc allegations have been made to the eﬀect that the cheques were entrusted to the accused as part of the understanding reached on 25.01.2010 while handing over the business for the purpose of meeting urgent expenditure in the business of the complainant and the accused have resorted to criminal breach of trust by fabrication of one of the blank cheques as if the complainant issued cheque for Rs.6 lakhs in ﬁnal settlement of the accounts of the accused. The complainant also alleged that the accused made threatening telephone calls and subjected her to criminal intimidation. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to necessarily come out only during the course of investigation. 8. In the circumstances, having regard to the nature of the oﬀences alleged and also the fact that speciﬁc allegations have been made prima-facie attracting the ingredients of the oﬀences alleged and that the matter requires thorough investigation, it is considered not a ﬁt case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings at the threshold stage and thereby thwart further investigation. There are absolutely no valid or justiﬁable grounds for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners in Cr.No.81 of 2010 of PS Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 17.11.2011 bss