IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 379 OF 2012 Between:
Ramesh Agarwal & Anr. … Petitioners/Accused V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P.
Hyderabad & Anr. ... Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Chetluru Sreenivas Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 379 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash CC.No. 1065 of 2010 on the file of XI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for offences under section 409, 420 read with section 34 IPC.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The main contention of Advocate for Petitioners is that first petitioner is a Director of DRS Logistic holding 58% shares and the second respondent is also a Director and to take vengeance due to internal personal differences between the parties the present complaint is filed to harass the petitioners. It is further contended that the complainant is holding only a small percentage of shares in the company and whereas major shares are held by family members of the first petitioner.
4. On the other hand, it is the contention of Advocate for second respondent that criminal law can be moved by any person and even as a shareholder he got every right to take legal action.
5. I have perused the complaint. According to complaint, the allegation against the petitioners is that having en-cashed Rs.1,50,00,000=00 [Rs. One Crore and Fifty Lakhs only] the petitioners failed to purchase property at Kochi, Kerala in the name of the company and thereby misappropriated money belonging to company and liable for punishment for offences under section 409 and 420 IPC.
6. The allegations and counter-allegations on behalf of the parties is a matter of evidence, which the trial court has to appreciate and decide after full-fledge trial.
7. From the submissions of both sides, it is clear that trial has already commenced and PW-1 is examined and the matter is at the stage of continuation of chief examination of defacto complainant.
8. As seen from the record, C.C. pending before trial court is of the year 2010 and it is an old case, therefore, considering the submissions of both sides, I feel by directing trial court to dispose of the main CC within stipulated time and permitting the petitioners to urge all these grounds before trial court, this criminal petition can be disposed of.
9. For the above reasons, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and both parties shall co- operate with the trial court for trial of the case and trial court shall also consider all the grounds urged by the petitioners herein during trial not being influenced by the dismissal of this criminal petition.
10. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
18/06/2014 I s L HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 379 OF 2012 Circulation No. 166 Date: 18/06/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 20th Court Hall