HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3903 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash Crime No.49 of 2010 on the file of the SHO, Gollapalli (Chilvakoduru) P.S., Karimnagar District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that 2nd respondent- defacto complainant company entered with a work contract with the petitioner vide order dated26.08.2008 for civil and erection work of 33/12 KV Sub Stations at Kodimyal and Mallanapet in Karimnagar District. Since the performance of the petitioner is not satisfactory, the said work order was terminated vide letter dated 22.10.2009 and the company demanded the petitioner to return the material belongs to NPDCL and the same was handed over to the petitioner for execution. Upon termination of work order, the petitioner had taken away the entire balance material including 31 KMS of conductor wire worked out to Rs.15 lakh with a mala fide intention without any information to the site officials or to the company to cause wrongful loss and to cheat the company by misappropriating the said material. Basing on the complaint of the 2nd respondent company, the S.H.O., Gollapalli (Chilvakoduru) P.S., Karimnagar District, registered Crime No.49 of 2010 against the petitioner under the sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed arbitration proceedings in O.P.No.678 of 2010 on the file of the III Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the 2nd respondent and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant order of status-quo on 15.04.2010. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent is still due an amount of Rs.13 lakh and the balance material with regard to the work order is with the petitioner and he is ready to hand over the same. He also argued that the matter being civil in nature, there is no need to investigate into the matter. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant submitted that the petitioner has misappropriated the material entrusted to him and the same has to be recovered from him, that the 2nd respondent is not intending to get the petitioner arrested as he is only concerned with the material since he is answerable to the Government, and that the investigation into the matter may go on and the material can be recovered from the petitioner without arresting him. I have also heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Considering the above facts and circumstances, normally this Court does not want to prevent the Investigating Agency from arresting the accused. But, in the present given facts and circumstances of the case and for the benefit of both parties, the Investigating Agency is directed to proceed with the investigation without making any arrest of the petitioner and to recover the material which is to be handed over to the Government and to file a final report. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the investigation in identifying the material so as to enable the Investigating Agency to recover the same. Further, it is directed that if the said order is not properly followed and if there is any non-cooperation by the petitioner or the 2nd respondent, the State represented by the Addl. Public Prosecutor is at liberty to approach this Court with a fresh application under the appropriate provisions of law. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J 25th January, 2011 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3903 of 2010 (Disposed of) 25th January, 2011 CBS