Point of Law :
It is suffice to conclude that the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the first respondent are without any substance and the material produced before this Court, directly indicates the mala fides in prosecution of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, so also, by abuse of process of the Court, as an arm-twisting method to bring the petitioners to the terms of the first respondent.

ORDER :

1. Criminal Petition No.11177 of 2015 is filed by accused No.1, Criminal Petition No.1466 of 2016 is filed by accused No.2 and Criminal Petition No.11187 of 2015 is filed by accused No.3.

2. Since all these three Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in C.C.No.947 of 2015, on the file of the XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, they are being disposed off by this common order.

3. Criminal Petition No.11177 of 2015 shall be treated as the leading Criminal Petition.

4. The facts in issue are that the 1st respondent herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., before the XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur, against the petitioners/A.1 to A3, which was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for investigation and report. Basing on the said reference, the Police, Madhapur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.803 of 2014, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. Eventually, the police, after investigating into the matter, filed a final report referring the case as “Action Drop”. Against which, a protest petition was filed by the 1st respondent/complainant. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, after perusing the protest petition, evidence and documents marked, took cognizance of the case and issued summons to accused 1 to 3. Challenging the same, all the three Criminal Petitions came to be filed by the petitioniers/A-1 to A-3.

5. A perusal of the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent would show that the 1st respondent was an employee of the petitioner/Accused No.1 organisation (hereinafter referred to as “Accused organization/company”) and joined as a Senior Software Engineer on 06.08.2009 with EMP I.D.No.1146 and he worked hard for the development of the organization. The 1st respondent had consistently produced excellent quality work by exhibiting the traits of productivity, motivation, dedication and self-reliance. He was undoubtedly reliable and consistently met deadlines and production goals. The accused organisation depended on his optimal efforts since the 1st respondent was ethically motivated to provide an honest day for his wages. The 1st respondent took pride in his abilities and also the accused No.1 organisation find frequent recognition for his perseverance at on-site job which reinforced his actions at work which resulted in promotion of position as Senior Consultant and Client Trainer. It is also stated that the 1st respondent was doing on a low pay scale and was searching for potential opportunities. Thereafter, the 1st respondent received a call from a prestigious organisation i.e., M/s. Tech Mahindra Limited, Hyderabad, offering amazing benefits and asking him to join in their organisation. The 1st respondent submitted his resignation to accused organisation and accused No.3 had accepted his resignation and relieved him from the employment specifically mentioned in the experience/service letter in writing as follows:

“During the tenure of his employment, his interpersonal and communication skills have allowed him to develop productive working relationship with both our customers and colleagues. He has shown remarkable dedication, enthusiasm and a positive attitude towards his job responsibilities. I wish him the best of luck and recommend him for employment without reservation.”

6. Subsequently, the 1st respondent had joined in M/s. Tech Mahindra Limited, Hyderabad on 25.06.2014. As a part of joining formalities and as per the policy of M/s. Tech Mahindra Limited, background verification of the each employee in the organisation is conducted. As a normal practice, a reputed agency is assigned to handle the task of back ground verification and the same was done to verify the 1st respondent’s details with his previous employer i.e., accused organization. After due verification and referral check, the Accused organization has subm