1. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.1592 of 2010 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally. The present criminal petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in the said case, which was taken on file against them for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C.

2. The allegations in the complaint in brief are as under :

The second respondent herein is a proprietary concern running a printing press under the name and style of M/s. Gowtham Printers at Kukatpally. A-2 approached the respondent in the month of April 2009, introduced himself as Finance Manager of V.R.Equipments and Consumables Private Limited and informed the respondent that their company intend to conduct a survey in the general public, for which they need huge quantity of survey forms. The respondent agreed to supply the survey forms and accordingly an order dated 25.04.2009 was placed with the complainant for print and supply of 8 crores of survey forms. The accused agreed to pay @ Rs.46,000/-per one lakh forms and the total cost of the order was estimated as Rs.3,68,00,000/-. Initially the complainant printed 70 lakhs forms, but 50,000 forms were supplied to the accused in five consignments, costing Rs.25 lakhs. Apart from the forms, the complainant also supplied stationery worth Rs.2,00,000/-to the petitioners. Out of the said amount of Rs.25,00,000/-, the petitioners paid Rs.15,00,000/-to the complainant. The complainant had been asking the accused to pay the balance of Rs.10,00,000/- and also to receive 20,000 forms, which were lying in the printing press, which are worth about Rs.9,20,000/-. As the material was printed in various printing presses, the printing operators were pressurizing the complainant for payment of money. Since the second accused was also a resident of Kukatpally, mediation took place wherein he promised to pay the amount within a short period. As things became worse, the respondent proceeded to the house of A-1 and to his surprise he was informed that the accused vacated the house and his whereabouts are not known. When he met the second accused, he not only went back on his word, but also abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences if a case is filed against him. The office of the Accused No.1 was also found closed and he was absconding from the said area. But A1 used to telephone to the complainant from different numbers and used to abuse him in vulgar language and threatened him with dire consequences in case any coersive steps are taken against him. Recently, the complainant found that A-1 started a new business at Madapur in the name of Ramesh Charities and also came to know that both the accused are involved in many cases by collecting huge money from public by deceiving them with false promises. Basing on these allegations, the police filed charge-sheet.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that even accepting the allegations in the charge-sheet to be true, no offence is made out under section 420 I.P.C. According to him one of the main ingredients to constitute cheating is that there should be dishonest intention from inception, which according to him is lacking in the present case.

He would further contend that since the offence is committed by company, the criminal case cannot be continued without making the company as an accused. He submits that question of breach of trust as contemplated under section 406 I.P.C. would not arise as there was no entrustment of any property to the complainant. Since substantial amount was paid, it cannot be said that there was dishonest intention right from inception and the proper remedy for the complainant will be to approach the civil Court to recover the balance amount and damages if any. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in every case of breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating an