IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14769 of 2009 Between: 1 Madhusudhan S Goud S/o. Narayana Rao Hyderabad, R/o. 6-1-276, B/21, CIB Quarters Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 Satyanarayana Reddy K.V.V. Ex. Employees TATA Services R/o. 16-2-292, Plot No. 146 m S.S. Colony, Hydernagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Central Crime Station Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector of Police Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.VINAY SHEKAR GUNNALA Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash FIR No.143 of 2009 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. The petitioners are the former employees of TATA Tele Services, Hyderabad. In connection with an alleged scam indulged in by the petitioners causing huge loss of about Rs.2.39 crore to their employer, the complaint given by it’s representative was registered as Crime No.143 of 2009 on 13.06.2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC. The petitioners filed the present writ petition to quash the FIR in the said crime. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. In the complaint given by one Sundareshan Venugopal, a representative of the petitioners’ employer, it is inter alia stated that the petitioners herein, Senior Manager and Deputy Manager respectively, and another person, by name, C.V.Ramakrishna Murthy, Senior Manager handling Central Services Operations, colluded and conspired together to defraud the company by illegal call routing for personal benefit at the cost of the company and that the said three employees have accessed and misused the company switch operations by illegally routing calls to Cuba, which caused significant revenue loss to the company and the Government of India. It was further stated in the complaint that the illegal action of the accused constitutes criminal breach of trust. The modus operandi said to be practiced by the petitioners was explained in detail, which need not be referred to herein. It will suffice to note that the fraud played by the petitioners is graphically stated in the complaint, on the basis of which, the crime was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the accusations made against the petitioners are not supported by any evidence. The jurisdiction of this Court to quash FIR in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by well- defined limitations placed by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court. If the allegations contained in the complaint taken on their face value do not constitute commission of an offence, this Court would interfere with the criminal complaint in order to prevent abuse of process of law and Courts. (See State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal[1], State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[2] and State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo[3]) In the instant case, prima facie, the allegations made against the petitioners taken on their face value constitute commission of serious offences. Therefore, this case does not fall within the parameters of the law laid down by the Supreme Court for quashing the FIR. Whether the allegations or accusations are supported by evidence or not will be considered in the trial after completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet. Therefore, this plea is not germane for consideration by this Court at this stage. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners at this stage. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.19381 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd JULY, 2009. kvni [1] 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 [2] (1982) 1 SCC 561 [3] 2005 (2) SCJ 804