B SHEKAR Vs. STAN POWER TECHNOLOIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are Accused 1 & 2, by names B.Shekar, Managing Director and Mrs.B.Pushpaveni, W/o.B.Shekar, Director of M/s.DRS Network Solutions Pvt. Ltd., which is outcome of private complaint of the 1st respondent - M/s.Stanpower Technologies, represented by its partner - Timothy Prakash, filed before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, that was referred to police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), from which the Uppal Police Station, Rachakonda District, registered Crime No.888 of 2017 and the present quash petition is in impugning the said crime registered and pending against them from the private complaint.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the de facto complainant - 1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 2nd respondent State and perused the material on record.

(3.) The contentions in the quash petition vis- -vis the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in impugning the said FIR registered for the offences punishable udner Sections 406, 420 & 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') with reference to the private complaint averments supra are that the allegations are factually incorrect and entire story is created for the purpose of false implication with oblique motive. The company M/s.DRS Network Solutions Pvt. Ltd., to which the petitioners are Managing Director and Director respectively, is in existence since 1998 in the business of Computer Networking and IP Surveillance and allied aspects and Government of A.P., Police Department, invited tenders for election of Surveillance cameras for "Krishna Pushkarlu" in August, 2016, and called for tender notifying supply and installation of around 1500 Surveillance Closed Circuit Cameras and the 1st petitioner as Managing Director of the company participated in the tender and became highest bidder and received purchase order for supply and installation of only 396 cameras and later de facto complainant - 1st respondent approached the 1st petitioner entity for purchasing cameras from them and as per the Proforma Invoice/Quotation for supply of 430 CCTV Cameras and 4 LED Monitors for Rs.1,63,50,758/- to be paid after supply of material by payment of advance of Rs.84,00,000/-, given ten (10) promissory notes and ten (10) cheques as security for balance. The de facto complainant was postponing delivery of cameras and as "Krishna Pushkaralu" were nearing, the 1st petitioner entity was forced to arrange for supply of cameras from other sources at highest rates and the 1st respondent supplied only 200 cameras just before start of "Krishna Pushkaralu" and did not supply balance. The 1st respondent deposited three cheques out of the ten cheques without even informing the company of the 1st petitioner and the cheques given not for any legally enforceable debt, but only as security. The 1st respondent agreed to supply balance material and settle the accounts only on condition that the company of the 1st petitioner should deposit Rs.10,00,000/- to the credit of Y.L.Prasad, a business associate and relative of 1st respondent's Managing Partner and the 1st respondent could not supply the material and could only supply material worth Rs.90,00,000/- and the company of the 1st petitioner in all paid Rs.1,01,00,000/- and there from even the 1st respondent enriched about Rs.11,00,000/- and committed criminal breach of trust by presenting the three cheques out of ten cheques given as security by filling. In fact the 1st petitioner's entity demanded for supply of balance material or refund of excess amount paid and return the blank cheques and pronotes obtained as security and with the 1st respondent. The 1st petitioner contacting the 1st respondent through mails to settle the account by supply of balance material or refund of excess amount and return of promissory notes and cheques. However, the 1st respondent did not turn up and misused with mala fide intention the three cheques. The company of the 1st petitioner got issued legal notice, dated 28.04.2017, to the 1st respondent to repay the excess amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The 1st respondent not taken delivery of those notices sent by Speed Post and anticipating legal action from the 1st petitioner's company, the 1st respondent approached by filing the private complaint invoking criminal jurisdiction of converting the civil dispute and there is no any element of cheating and no any offence of breach of trust or cheating, much less criminal intimidation and the crime registered based on a private complaint is liable to be quashed.