THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3955 of 2008 15.7.2010 Between Marketing Manager (A1), Vodafone Essar South Limited, Vijayawada, Krishna District And others … Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3955 of 2008 ORDER: The Marketing Manager and Sales Manager of Vodafone Essar South Limited, Vijayawada, Krishna District, and Proprietor of Global Communications, are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.126 of 2008 of L&O P.S., Suryaraopet, Vijayawada. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) for quashing the investigation in the said crime. The second respondent gave a report to Police alleging offence under Sections 405 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the petitioners, based on which the crime was registered. In his report to the Police, second respondent stated that he was appointed as dealer of Vodafone, that he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- for operating the dealership and as per the contract he is required to pay necessary amount and obtain recharge coupons. Alleging that Vodafone violated the terms of agreement, he filed O.S.No.40 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for permanent injunction, against the petitioners. The said suit is pending. In the mean while on 20.5.2008, second respondent allegedly sent demand draft for Rs.33,700/- for stock of recharge coupons. The stock was sent to third petitioner. According to second respondent, the activity of the petitioners amounts to offence under Sections 405 and 420 of IPC. This Court heard the Senior Counsel for petitioners, the Counsel for second respondent and Public Prosecutor for first respondent. There is no dispute that the second respondent entered into PCO distributor agreement on 06.11.2006. There is also no dispute that he filed suit being O.S.No.40 of 2008 for permanent injunction along with I.A.No.183 of 2008 for ad interim injunction. The same was dismissed on 29.5.2008. About ten days thereafter, he went to Police and lodged report. Sequence of the events and background of the case would certainly indicate that the dispute between petitioners and second respondent is with regard to dealership and non-supply of recharge coupons. The dispute has to be resolved by Civil Court and that the suit is already pending between the parties. Therefore, even if the contents of the F.I.R. are taken to be true, they do not constitute an offence. The Counsel for second respondent however vehemently contends that ingredients of Sections 405 and 420 of IPC are made out and, therefore, the Court cannot look to any evidence at that stage. This Court is not able to countenance the submission. This Court has made reference to the order passed on 29.5.2008 in I.A.No.183 of 2008 in O.S.No.40 of 2008 by the Vacation Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, only to show that complaint was lodged by second respondent with mala fide intention. In G.Sagar Suri v State of U.P.[1], the Supreme Court held that if a dispute is essentially of a civil nature, it cannot be given cloak of criminal offence and that the criminal proceedings are not shortcut of other remedies available under law. I n Indian Oil Corpn v NEPC India Ltd.[2], the Supreme Court while holding that even if dispute arose out of breach of contract, which can be agitated by availing remedy under civil law, such remedy under criminal law is barred, made the following observations. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protects the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. This Court has carefully perused the report of second respondent to Police and considered the background for filing such a report. There are convincing reasons to come to the conclusion that the criminal case is lodged with mala fide intention and if investigation is allowed in such case, it would certainly result in miscarriage of justice besides abuse of process of law. In view of the above, the criminal petition is allowed and the investigation in Crime No.126 of 2008 of L&O PS Suryaraopet, Vijayawada, is quashed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) July 15, 2010. YS [1] (2000) 2 SCC 636 [2] (2006) 6 SCC 736