HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY CRL.P.No.4909 OF 2015

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by petitioners/A-1 to A-4 seeking to quash proceedings against them in F.I.R.No.132 of 2015 on the file of Nacharam Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District registered for the offences 415, 420, 447, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. The second respondent filed private complaint before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District and the same was referred to the Station House Officer, Nacharam under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same was registered in the above said crime for the aforesaid offences.

3. The allegations of the complaint, in brief, are that the second respondent is the owner of plot No.14, Industrial Development Area, Mallapur, Ranga Reddy District. A-1 is a Multinational company having its Headquarters in Paris, France and A-2 and A-3 are authorized persons in Hyderabad managing and looking after the affairs of A-1 company. A-4 is French National looking after the business affairs of A-1 company in India. To conduct its business operations in India, A-1 has been registered as a private limited company in Hyderabad. The second respondent has entered into lease agreement with accused No.1 on 04.07.2007 for a period of five years on monthly rent of Rs.1,30,000/-. The petitioner/A-1 deposited with the second respondent a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs as refundable deposit without interest. Subsequently, fresh lease agreement was executed on 30.06.2012 for a period of (36) months. The first petitioner agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.2,40,000/-. It is alleged that under clause-12 of the said lease agreement, the first petitioner had an option to terminate the lease agreement by giving one month notice. But the second respondent issued reply expressing his refusal to accept the termination. It is alleged that on 15.02.2014, the first petitioner got issued legal notice calling upon the second respondent to refund Rs.17,36,000/- after termination of lease. The second respondent got issued reply notice to the said legal notice dated 10.03.2014 denying all the allegations and called upon the first petitioner to pay Rs.50.00 lakhs. Subsequently there was no response from the first petitioner and as the premises are abandoned, the second respondent was forced to take possession of the property on 03.04.2014. The second respondent got issued further reply notice on 07.04.2014. It is alleged that as per the terms and conditions of the lease agreement dated 30.06.2012, the first petitioner/A-1 is bound to restore the premises in good condition as it was at the time when they were put in possession. But the first petitioner/A-1 had surrendered 74 HP transformer of the second respondent’s to the Electricity Department illegally and unlawfully causing loss of more than Rs.2.00 lakhs to him. It is also alleged that the second respondent suffered substantial financial loss and not in a position to carry on the business and the action of petitioners resulted in closure of his small scale industry. The second respondent filed O.S.No.625 of 2014 against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District claiming Rs.50.00 lakhs towards damages and compensation and the same is pending. It is also alleged that the petitioners with a criminal intention abandoned the leased premises and caused wrongful loss to the second respondent and thereby cheated him. On 12.04.2015 when the second respondent was at his premises, the staff and labour engaged by the petitioners verbally abused him in filthy language and threatened him. Thus, the petitioners with common intention committed the offences of cheating, criminal tress, criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy against the second respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations of the complaint do not prima facie constitute any cognizable offences and the