IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5842 of 2007 Between: M/s.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Rep by its C & MD and others …Petitioners AND State of A.P. rep by P.P. And another …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5842 of 2007 ORDER: This Court, while admitting the matter on 06.10.2007, granted interim stay in Crl.M.P.No.4341 of 2007. The petitioners ﬁled the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ for the purpose of convenience) to call for records relating to and connected with Crime No.152 of 2007 of Nampally Police Station, Hyderabad, pending enquiry on the ﬁle of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and quash the same and pass such other suitable orders. Smt B.Vasantha Lakshmi, learned counsel, representing the petitioners had taken this Court through the contents of the complaint and also the speciﬁc grounds raised in the present criminal petition ﬁled under Section 482 of the Code and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, even if the allegations are to be taken into consideration, the ingredients of any of such oﬀences are not attracted and this is nothing but sheer abuse of process. Learned counsel also pointed out about two civil suits that are pending in this Court. Ultimately, learned counsel would conclude that in the light of the same, the proceedings are to be quashed. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1 had taken this Court through the allegations made in the complaint and would maintain that since certain factual controversies are involved in this case, this may not be a ﬁt matter to be interfered with under Section 482 of the Code. Sri Mujeeb, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 – complainant would maintain that inasmuch as several factual controversies are involved in this case, it would not be just and proper to permit the ﬁle to be further proceeded with and interference at this stage with further proceedings in Crime No.152 of 2007 of Nampally Police Station, may not be just and proper. Heard the learned counsel on record. It is the case of the petitioner that initially, on the complaint given by the second respondent to the Station House Oﬃcer, Nampally P.S., Hyderabad, a case in Crime No.152 of 2007 was registered on 25.06.2007 for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 I.P.C. As per the FIR in the aforesaid crime, the version of the prosecution is as hereunder. It is stated in the petition that the accused No.1 – HDFC Company – has appointed the petitioner on 09.07.2001 vide proceedings dated 11.07.2001 as ﬁnancial consultant / insurance agent and issued license bearing No.169308 for procuring individual life insurance business, and that the accused company, with dishonest intention, induced the complainant / 2nd respondent to work as ﬁnancial consultant by making false promises of giving high commission on low risk. It is also stated that the accused company has again and again during 100 hours training course and at the time of giving appointment letter has assured the complainant that they will strictly adhere to the norms prescribed by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority and that the complainant has joined the company on the basis of false representations of the company. It is further stated that at the time of joining the accused company, it has assured total commission payable in ﬁrst ﬁve years shall be 60% of the annual premium payable on the policies, that the accused have also assured the complainant that the percentage of the commission prescribed in the brochure is the highest limit and the commission shall not be payable below to that limit; that one Deepa Kiran, Mubin Banu and the 5th accused have assured the complainant about the commission limit, and that on the basis of the assurance given by the accused company only the complainant has joined the company of the accused. It is also stated that during the stay of the petitioner with the company, he has given crores of rupees new business, the sum assured to the company being more than Rs.5 crore for which the only annual premium shall be about Rs.40 lakhs per year; that the accused has paid commission to the complainant for 2 years 3 months and the accused company has also paid @ 10% on the premium as incentive in the shape of non- money beneﬁt, and that from 01.11.2003 the accused company has suddenly changed the commission structure by reducing the rate of commission from 40% to 20% and incentives were completely abolished. Further it is stated that at the time of joining the company, all the accused have assured the complainant that no changes, in whatsoever manner, shall be eﬀected in the structure of the payment of commission; that the company cheated the complainant by going back on their promise and changed the structure of the commission. It is also stated that the company has also assured the complainant that there shall not be reclaiming commission from the other policies against the lapsed policies for the ﬁrst 3 years, but the company has gone back on their promise and also cheated the complainant by way of reclaiming the compensation of other premiums against lapsed policies; that they have cheated not only the complainant but also about 30,000/- ﬁnancial consultants of the company and in this way, all the accused have misappropriated the billions of rupees of the ﬁnancial consultants; that they have caused damage to the Indian economy by not paying the taxes to the Government and they have destroyed the families of the ﬁnancial consultants, and that the complainant and the other ﬁnancial consultants are on the verge of starvation due to the cheating and criminal misappropriation committed by the accused. It is also further stated that accused company with a dishonest intention has kept high revival charges in order to discredit the policy holders and agent from paying future premium, and that the company is doing so in order to swallow the payments paid by the policy holders. Further it is stated that the complainant has approached various authorities in this country by way of ﬁling of applications highlighting the highhandedness of the accused but no action has been initiated by any of the agencies so far. Aggrieved by registering of the crime in Crime No.152 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Station House Oﬃcer, Nampally Police Station, Hyderabad, the petitioners approached this Court by ﬁling the present criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code raising several grounds. The petitioners are aggrieved with the complaint dated 06.08.2007, letter dated 29.06.2007, FIR No.152 of 2007 dated 25.06.2007. They also placed the following before this Court. Plaint Copy in O.S.No.2245 of 2006 dated 21.04.2006 Copy of plaint in O.S.No.168 of 2007 dated 23.10.2006 Written statement in O.S.No.168 of 2007 dated 13.09.2007 Copy of approval of the Chairman dated 27.01.2006 Office Order dated 11.09.2007 Acceptance Copy dated 11.06.2001 Representation dated 05.01.2005 Representation dated 01.04.2005 PMO Letter dated 31.05.2005 PMO complaint Complaint dated 20.07.2005 PMO Letters dated 22.07.2005 Personal Letter dated 10.01.2006 Letter issued by the S.I. of Police dated 17.01.2006 Explanation by the petitioner dated 18.01.2006 Memo dated 30.01.2006 Explanation dated 04.02.2006 Explanation dated 07.02.2006 Personal letter dated 01.03.2006 Call letter dated 06.03.2003 Complaint dated 08.03.2006 Memo issued by Collector dated 10.03.2006 Complaint dated 18.03.2006 Complaints dated 18.03.2006 Complaints dated 22.03.2006 Challana dated 10.04.2006 Memo dated 10.04.2006 Termination copy dated 12.08.2006 Memo of appearance dated 03.10.2007 The contents of the same, being self-explanatory, need not be discussed in elaboration. Be that as it may, a speciﬁc stand has been taken that the second respondent deliberately suppressed the fact of ﬁling of O.S.No.168 of 2007 for awarding damages. Further, it is stated that the ﬁrst petitioner company had also ﬁled a suit in O.S.No.2245 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad for injunction against second respondent. The legislations governing the ﬁeld had also been pointed out. A careful reading of the averments made in the plaints in O.S.No.168 of 2007 and O.S.No.2245 of 2006 speciﬁed supra, would go to show that even if the allegations made in the complaint are to be carefully scrutinized, this Court is thoroughly satisﬁed that the dispute predominantly is of civil in nature. Even otherwise, none of the ingredients of the oﬀences speciﬁed above, in any way, would be attracted and the remedy on criminal side, being a misconceived one, fails. Hence, the proceedings under challenge cannot be sustained. In the light of the same, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in Crime No.152 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Station House Oﬃcer, Nampally Police Station, Hyderabad. ____________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J March 05, 2010 Bvv