HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6229 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.409 of 2010 of Madhapur P.S., Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 468 and 471 of IPC. According to the complaint, the petitioner herein, Deputy Sales Manager of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant company, while working as Sales Manager, manipulated cash receipts and sales invoices to show the outstanding amount very less to the company. When the company verified the sale transactions, it is revealed that the outstanding dues are Rs.2.55 crores. During primary enquiry of the company, it came to light that the petitioner diverted the stocks and received amounts from the customers and diverted the amount to various account holders namely S. Nagaraju, A.Vijaya, Myalala Pavani and M.Venkatagiribabu including his account and, thereby, cheated the company to a tune of Rs.2.55 crores. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the Deputy Manager of the 2nd respondent company and he has nothing to do with the data entry in the focus sale system and the allegation that he has created fictitious invoices from various existing customers of the company and shifted the stocks to various places is false. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.997 of 2010 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar for perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd respondent company from entering into his personal affairs. In the said suit, written statement was filed and issues were framed and the contents of the written statement and the present complaint are one and same. Further, the 2nd respondent company has not filed any documents or any legal evidence to substantiate its case. The 2nd respondent complainant filed the present complaint as counter blast to the cases filed by the petitioner. This Court perused the entire record. As far as the first contention is concerned, whether the petitioner is vested with the powers to operate the computer and to maintain the accounts of the 2nd respondent company is a matter to be investigated. As far as the second contention is concerned, same allegations in the written statement filed in the civil suit are made in the present complaint. But at the same time, this Court is of the view the remedy sought in the civil suit is something different from the remedy sought in the criminal case. Hence, filing of civil suit by the petitioner will not stand in the way of investigation of the case registered against him herein. With regard to the third contention that there is no legal evidence produced along with the complaint is concerned, in all cases it is not necessary to file all documents and available evidence along with the complaint. After filing of a complaint, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to collect documents to substantiate its case, more particularly, when the evidence is against an accused person, but not by the complainant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the above contentions raised by the learned counsel are to be investigated only by the Investigating Officer and it is well within the prerogative of the Investigating Officer. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation, at this stage. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed and miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed shall stand closed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 4th November, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6229 of 2010 (Dismissed) 4th November, 2011 cbs