The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri sudarshan Malugari, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. E. Ganesh, Assistant Public pros6cutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Mis. Nishitha, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.923 OF 2O2L ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is frletl under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused, seeking t<l quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No. 1004 of 201,) dated

02.O2.2019 on the frle of IV Additional Chief Metr<.rpolitan Magistrate, Nampa1ly, Hyderabad (for short, the trial Court), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, and 42O of Indian Penal Code

2. Heard Mr.M.Sudarshar, learned counsel lbr the petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent 1/State and Ms.Nishitha, learned counsel representing respondent No.2. Penrsed the record

3. The bri,:f facts of the case are that tlne tle-facto complainant,,/ Mr.Prashanth Rao floated a company in the name and style of Sharvani Energr Pvt. Ltd., and hr: is the Managing Dir-ector of the said company. During the course of business, one Minaketan Dash/petitioner here in has R :l 2 EW,J Crl.P.No.923 of2021 joined as Vice President and the complainant used to pay the salary regularly. It is stated that in the year 2OO4 they purchased one Ambassador Car bearing Chassis No.ABX779920 Engine No. 3ENAXO05900 and Registration No.AP31N3669 from one Anjani Agarwal and subsequently, the said vehicle was transferred in the name of M/s.Sharvani Ener5/ Art. Ltd. (i) It is stated that in the year 2O11 the company wanted to purchase another vehicle in the name of company ald the company has transferred a sum of Rs.2,5O,0OO/- (Rupees Two Lakhs hfty Thousand only) on 28-03-2011 to M/s.Way Automotives Private Limited (Tata Motors Dealer) for purchase of Tata Indigo CS Diesel ELS version through RTGS from the company account of Andhra Bank, Tarnaka branch vide Current A/ c No.05781101100i350 and remaining arnount of Rs.2,22,582/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty two Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Two only) was paid through cash in favour of M/s.Way Automotives Private Limited. Mr.Minaketan Dash/petitioner herein, with a dishonest intention took the invoice on his name J EVY,J Ctl.P.No 923 of 2021 represented by Sharvani Enerry h/t. Ltd, Hyderabrrd. It is stated that in the year 2016 Mr.Minaketan Dash has resigned from the company and the company has settled all the monjtory issues relating to him and Mr.Milaketan Dash has executed Disclaimer letter and also has given undertaking in favour of company that further he will not claim anything from the company. After settling all his dues when the de-facto complainant/responderLt No.2 asked for return of two vehicles along with R ls i.e AP3 1N3669 (Ambassador Car) and OR 10J 4441 (Tata Indigo CS), h.e neither returned the vehicles nor the RCs to the company. On verification it came to liglrt that Mr. Minaketan Dash has sold the Vehicle bearing No.AP3 1N3669 to one Mr.Camarushi Seetharam and another vehicie No. OR IOJ 4444 (Tata Indigo CS) to third part5r withotLt informing the company by forging the signatures (ii) It is further stated that though the company wanted to keep th e vehicles in the name of co mpany, Mr.Minaketarr Dash with a ma-lalide intentic,n has 4 E''Y;T OLP.No-923 of 2021 registered the subject vehicles on his name and sold them without permission from the company or the complainant and the said acts of Mr.Minaketan Dash attract Criminal Breach of Trust and cheating the company and the representatives, due to which the Company has lost Rs.7 to 8 Lakhs. On questioning about selling of vehicles, Mr.Minaketan Dash threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Basing on the complaint made by the de-facto complainant, a case is registered in Cr,No.373 of 2OI7 for the offences punishable under Section 406 and 42O of IPC and the same is taken on file by the trial Court in C.C.No.1004 of 2019. Aggneved by the same, the present Criminal Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a false case was foisted against the petitioner herein by the de-facto complainant by suppressing the material facts with a malahde intention for extraction of monetary gain from the petitioner herein. He further contended that admittedly, the petitioner herein served as the Vice President of M/s.Sharvani Energr (P) Ltd., during the l I : i 1! 5 EYY,J Crl.P.No.92j of 2021 period 2OOA to 2OL6 on salary basis, on the cDntrary, respondent No.2 made another complaint dated 23-07-2O2O a.t Kotpad Police Station, Orissa State, alleging that the petit.ioner is not the Vice President but r<rndered his services as consultant on basis of remuneration. (i) He further contended that the petitioner herein resigned fronr the said company in the year 2016 and in the year 2014 itself respondent No.2 was very mucJt aware of the fact ttrat the car (Tata Indigo CS) was in the rrame of the petitioner and the Ambassador Car was also so1,.1 in the year 2OI1 arLd these statements were made in the letter dated 24 05-2014 addressed by respondent No.2 to the petitioner herein. (i0 He further contended that in the compromis e letter executed by respondent No.2 herein he made u clear declaration 1.hat he has no claims against the pe titioner herein and accordingly, final settlement arrived tretween the parties in the presence of the Sri.Tarerprasad Bhainipathi, MLA of Jeypore Constituency and as lrer the settlement respondent No.2 paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- 6 . EW,J CrLP.No.923 of2021 instead of Rs.25,0O,O0O/- through NEFT transfer, which clearly demonstrates that the petitioner herein served as Vice President of respondent No.2 company from 2004 to

2016. He further contended that the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C do not prove the offence alleged against the petitioner herein ald no loss is caused to respondent No.2 and a false case is foisted against the petitioner. Hence, he seeks to al1ow the Criminal Petition'

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant by relying upon the decision rendered by this Court in Mohd' Maqbool Ahmed and. others as The State of Telangana and otherst contended that the petitioner herein sold the vehicles without the knowledge of the company and complainant. Hence, the acts of the petitioner attract Criminal Breach of Trust and cheating the company and its representatives to the tune of Rs.7 to 8 lal<hs' On questioning about the selling of the subject vehicles, the petitioner threatened the complainant with dire consequences. She further contended that unless and until I MANU l'.rLlo9t4 /2023 7 EVt/,J Crl. P.N o.923 of 2021 full-fledged l rial is conducted, the truth cannot bt: elicited and interfe:ence of this Court at this junr:ture is unwarrantecj.. Therefore, she seeks to dismiss the .llriminal Petition.

6. A peru.sal of material on record reveals t hat the petitioner has joined the company of respondent No.2 as Vice President in the year 2OO4 and resigned in ,he year 20 16 and a compromise letter has been execr rted by respondent No.2 on behalf of his company and on his own behalf, whic.h reveals that respondent No.2 has oaid an arnount of Rs.15 lakhs towards monthly hrnorary remuneration etc., as demanded by the petitioner instead of Rs.25 lakhs and respondent No.2 further declared that he has no further claims, interest of any nature against the petitionr:;- herein and both parties arrived i rt {inal settlement irr the presence of MLA of Jeypore Const.:tuency of Orissa State. Further, the contents of the F.I. R. also reveal that thr: Ambassador car was purchased in t.lte year 2OO4 and Tata Indigo CS Diesel ELS was purchaseci in the year 2Ol1 anrl the complaint was lodged in the year 2Ol7 8 Etnar Gl.P.No.923 of 2021 that too after the resignation of the petitioner herein and admittedly, there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint against the petitioner and no piece of document is placed on record to prove the alleged chgges against the petitioner herein and general allegations are levelled against the petitioner and no specific and distinct allegations are made against him. In the absence of any specifrc role attributed to the petitioner/accused with regard to the alleged loss incurred by the company, it would be unjust if he is forced to go through the tribulations of the trial for the offences under Sections 406 and 42O of Indian Penal Code.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel ald upon careful consideration of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.10O4 of 2019 pending on the IlIe of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No. 10O4 of 2Ot9 pending on the file of learned Xt*.&-K' D.Effi* E&K 9 EVY,J Crl.P.N.'.923 of 2021 IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad against the petitioner are hereby quash()d.

8. Accor<tngly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if arty, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANI REGISTRAR \\ \\ ] \rcrroru oFFtcER i To,

1. The lV Addit onal Chief lvletropolitan Magiskate, Namfally, Hy,lerabad. 2. The Station llouse Officer, Osmania University Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs ki rhe Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of lelangana at HyderabadIOUT]

4. One CC to Sri Sudarshan Malugari, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to M/s. Nishitha, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Plo/DL ' ld"w- HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 ORDER CRLP.No.923 of 2021 1dL :j [/., r6 ( ( Z c .t o o t 1 0 AF ir 2025 t ,t')F..ilrnr 'r,l-.C a ALLOWING THE CRL.P. LD