U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. Criminal Petition Nos. 36 of 2015 and 16240 of 2014 are filed by Accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Cr. No. 274 of 2014 of KPHB Colony PS, Cyberabad District.

2. The facts which led to file the instant petitions are briefly thus:

"a) The private complaint filed by the complainant was forwarded by learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Miyapur to KPHB PS, on the basis of which the police registered Cr. No. 274 of 2014 under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3.

b) The complainant Company engaged in construction, contract coal mining and other infrastructural development activities. Whereas A1 Company is a joint venture between Thiess Maurisus PTY Limited and Minecs Finvest Private Limited which undertakes mining and related activities in India. A2 and A3 are the Directors of A1 Company.

c) In the year 2006, National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) invited bids for taking out mining operations at Pakri Barwadih Coal Block Project (PB Project) owned by it. A1 participated in the tender process and was shortlisted at the qualification stage. In February, 2008 NTPC invited A1 to submit its price bid by 03.07.2008.

d) As per complainant, M/s. PTY Limited is a Company incorporated in Australia and a majority shareholder in A1 Company and it had no experience in mining operation in India. So, A1 was looking for a local partner to assist it in bidding process and also to undertake removal of OB/IB in the event A1 Company bagging the PB contract from NTPC. After satisfying with the competency and capabilities of the complainant in the mining field, A1 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with complainant on 02.07.2008 with a clear and express agreement that a formal sub-contract would be given shape if the NTPC project was awarded to A1 Company. The complainant was induced to enter into MOU dated 02.07.2008 on the express promise that A1 would formalise sub-contract in favour of complainant to carryout 67% of the total waste removal work for an estimated period of 22 years. Basing on the said promise and inducement, complainant even before execution of MOU, has disclosed valuable information on specific issues like coal mining in India, location of coal, mining, pricing, bidding and bid submission of process, issues faced in coal mining and security aspects etc. to enable A1 Company to effectively participate in bidding process. e) A1 made use of the information relating to preparation and finalisation of price bid proposals to NTPC and also in arriving at the base price for waste and coal removal. A1 got hold of ways and means of dealing with hostile local communities through the complainant. That apart, A1 could also assess possible risks that would arise due to delays in land acquisition by NTPC. Thus, A1 was benefited in all respects by the information and assistance provided by complainant. Ever since entering into MOU, the complainant deployed resources at huge cost to assist A1 in the process of finance bidding and other associated process and from June, 2008 onwards the complainant had built a large team of people for execution of waste removal work, hired senior and retired executives from reputed coal mining companies in India and also engaged the services of team of mining engineers, geologists, drilling engineers, electrical and mechanical engineers, industrial engineers, HR personnel, finance and accountants etc. For this it incurred a huge cost of about 250 millions. However, A1 never had any intention right from the beginning to award sub-contract after grant of head contract from NTPC as it can get better price than MOU price."

3. A1 submitted its price bid proposal to NTPC on 03.07.2008 i.e. one day after entering into MOU with the complainant. The NTPC awarded the head contract to A1 Company by way of Letter of Award (LOA) which was possible on account of exclusive efforts and services of complainant. It is from then