JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed by the appellants -Tilak Nagar Industries Ltd., which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, and by its Chairman and Senior Vice President of the Company under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") praying for quashing of the proceedings in connection with Criminal Case No. 252 of 2010 dated 22.06.2010 registered at Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad. The High Court, by a detailed order, dismissed the appellants' case for quashing, inter alia, on the ground that the complaint disclosed prima facie case. The said order of the High Court has been impugned by the appellants before us on various grounds. When the matter was taken up at the previous stage and after we heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the stand taken by the parties, we asked the learned counsel for the appellant -Company to issue a publication in respect of respondent no.2 -the complainant clarifying therein that the expression "Judas" used against respondent no.2, was wrongly published and the same is withdrawn by the appellant Company. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant -Company upon instruction, has stated before us that his client is prepared to issue similar insertion in a prominent newspaper along with photo of respondent no.2 stating therein that expression "Judas" was used in connection with respondent no.2 inadvertently. However, Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 did not accept the said proposal. We have therefore heard the matter on merits. On merits, Mr. Luthra further submitted that the complaint has been filed by respondent no.2 by way of a counter blast having regard to the material facts on record. Mr. Luthra tried to take us to various other complaints filed against respondent no.2 by the appellant company as also the civil suit which was filed against him by the Company. While exercising our jurisdiction in connection with quashing of a complaint, we do not feel that we should directly go into all these factual assertions and counter assertions between the parties. However, while advancing the contention that this complaint has been filed by respondent no.2 so that the appellant may withdraw cases against him, Mr. Luthra further submits to the effect that the offences alleged against the appellant company by respondent no.2 are relatable to Sections 504, 500, 503 and 34 IPC and submits that offence under Section 503 is punishable under Section 506 IPC. Mr. Luthra, the learned senior counsel for the appellants -Company further submitted that accepting the allegations on their face value, no cognizable case is made out against the appellants. In support of his contention, Mr. Luthra referred to the well known decision of this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 and has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 102 and sub paras 2,4 and 7 thereof at page nos. 378 and 379 of the report. By referring to those paragraphs, Mr. Luthra submits where the First Information Report and the accompanying materials do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officer under Section 156(1) of the Code, no investigation of the case can be carried on without the order of the Magistrate in view of the mandate of Section 155 (2) of the Code. We set out from Bhajan Lal those sub paragraphs herein below:

102. xxx xxx xxx

(1) xxx xxx xxx

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR