IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.252 of 2008 Between: B.Venkata Raman Swamy and another … Petitioners And The State of A.P., represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.252 of 2008 ORDER: - Petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No.837 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 426, 406, 447, 323 r/w 34 IPC, filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the private complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is to harass the petitioners and damage the reputation in the society, as a counter blast to the civil suit in O.S.No.1047 of 2003 pending on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, R.R.District for recovery of balance amount of Rs.40,000/- out of Rs.80,000/- borrowed as loan under promissory note. Petitioner No.1 also filed a suit in O.S.No.471 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for recovery of Rs.4,37,300/-, as respondent No.2 failed to lift the machinery by paying the entire balance amount. Further respondent No.2 also filed a frivolous civil suit O.S.No.597 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Vijayawada against accused No.1 for recovery of Rs.2,27,600/- . In view of the civil suits pending, the initiation of the criminal proceedings is only abuse of the process as the complaint allegation goes to show that the complainant having been attracted by the rosy picture portrayed by both the accused, gave her consent to open the coir unit and further assented for the preparation of the project as suggested by accused No.1 and later accused No.1 has begun to swindle money from the complainant on various alleged accounts of preparation of project report, procuring of applications, securing registration at District Industrial Centre under the name and style of “Sri Sai Meghana Coir Products”, winning the favours of higher ups for sanctioning of unit under National Small Scale Industries Corporation. The complainant was induced to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of advance for purchase of land for a total consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- and the same was paid on 15.05.2002 by way of D.D. drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayawada and accused No.1 further influenced the complainant to give her assent for escalation of total sale consideration from Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.5,40,000/- for the purpose of securing higher loan amount from the sanctioning authorities and further directed the complainant to secure an agreement of lease in respect of the scheduled property as per the agreement of sale dated 15.05.2002, from the vendor. Further, the accused obtained D.Ds for Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant in favour of Modern Machinery Corporation with a fraudulent representation that the amount of D.Ds after encashmet needed to be transmitted to Flash Engineering Works at Pollachi for the purpose of ensuring the speedy and prompt delivery by way of advance for machinery for the proposed coir unit as the loan has already been sanctioned and the advance amount aforementioned would be refunded to the complainant immediately after the disbursement of the loan. The accused No.1 knowing fully well that the loan for any unit under National Small Scale Industries Corporation scheme would be granted after subjecting the applicant to an interview and in spite of this he deliberately and with a mala fide intention falsely represented to the complainant about the sanctioning of loan and thereby actively induced the complainant to incur an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- in the fond expectation of the realistaion of the project in order to implement his predetermined plan of misappropriating and misusing dishonestly the funds, lawfully belonging to the complainant, amounting to criminal breach of trust, cheating and mischief and to which accused No.2 had also been an active participant and collaborator in every act of accused No.1. On forwarding the complaint, the police after registering the case laid the charge sheet for the above offences, which was taken on file. In view of the same, when the complainant allegations clearly discloses about the dishonest intention, inducement, cheating and misappropriation of funds, which has to be enquired into by the criminal court to prove the guilt of the accused and merely because some civil suits are pending between the parties, claiming the amounts by the petitioners from the accused and the accused from the petitioners, cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 17th June 2010 lmv