MUKESH SHARMA Vs. C. V. RAMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A4, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.1048 of 2014 on the file of the X-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for the offences under Sections 120-B, 384, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of I.P.C.

(2.) The facts in issue are as under:

(3.) It is stated in the complaint that prior to 1992, the 1st respondent/complainant was working in Reed Information Services (P) Limited, a U.K. based company having its office at New Delhi. The 1st petitioner/A1, who knew the 1st respondent/complainant for quite some time before that, requested him to join I.T.E. India (P) Limited, assuring him that his association with the said Company would culminate into a very fantastic career. Upon the assurance of the 1st petitioner/A1, the complainant joined in 3rd petitioner/A3 company as a Project Manager on 10.08.1998, with a salary of Rs.11,500/-. It is further stated that the 1st respondent/complainant started working with the 3rd petitioner/A3 company in New Delhi as a Project Manager, and with sheer hard work and efficiency, he was instrumental in development of the 3rd petitioner/A3 company and its other concerned organization. The 1st petitioner/A1 wanted to expand his business in Hyderabad by taking advantage of the benefits being offered by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and, therefore, a company under the name and style of Hyderabad Trade Expo Centre (P) Limited, was incorporated on 23.12.2002 and consequently upon putting up a proposal with the Government of Andhra Pradesh, a piece of land admeasuring Ac.1.10 Guntas was allotted to the 4th petitioner/A4. Even the incorporation and consequent work till the allotment of the land was on account of the efficient handling of the 1st respondent/complainant, however, for some reasons, the 1st petitioner/A1 stopped giving the 1st respondent/complainant a free hand to deal in the further activity of the 4th petitioner/A4 and as such the 4th petitioner/A4 did not take off till 2004. After realizing that nothing could go ahead without the involvement of the 1st respondent/complainant, who was well conversant with the language and local logistics, he was yet again put at the helm of the affairs of the 4th petitioner/A4, but the 1st respondent/complainant was still kept in the employment of 3rd petitioner/A3 company.