ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section

482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No.943 of 2012 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief was that the 1st respondent filed the private complaint before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad which was referred to the police and the police registered a case in Crime No.313 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC against the petitioner. In the private complaint the 1st respondent contended that he was dealing in manufacturing and retail business of edible oil under the name and style of Umbrella/Gold/Rich Gold brands. The petitioner, who was Proprietor of M/s.Vijay Laxmi Traders approached the 1st respondent and had shown interest to start business with him. The 1st respondent started supplying oil to the petitioner and made it clear that only on advance payment, he would supply the oil. The petitioner agreed that he would issue cheques as and when he received the oil. The petitioner placed an order on 03.03.2012 for supply of Umbrella brand oil. Accordingly, the 1st respondent supplied the same under invoices amounting to Rs.8,95,463/-. The same was received and acknowledged by the petitioner and he issued cheque dated 23.04.2012 drawn on A.P. Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Kachiguda branch for a sum of Rs.3,04,107/- and assured that the same would be honoured on the date of presentation. The 1st respondent presented the cheque on 24.04.2012, but the cheque was dishonoured by the bank of the petitioner for the reason “insufficient funds”. The 1st respondent informed the same to the petitioner. The petitioner felt sorry and issued one more cheque dated 03.05.2012 for a sum of Rs.8,95,463/- and further assured that it would be honoured on the date of presentation. The 1st respondent presented the said cheque on 03.05.2012, but the same was also returned for the same reason i.e. “insufficient funds”. The 1st respondent informed about the same to the petitioner. The petitioner came up with one more cheque for payment of the oil supplied along with interest amount as agreed, for a sum of Rs.9,32,744/- on 14.06.2012. Even for the third time, the said cheque was returned for the reason “insufficient funds”. The petitioner came up with some more promises and requested the complainant to give one or two weeks time to clear all the dues. The 1st respondent after expiry of two weeks, send the collection boy for collecting the amount, but the petitioner evaded payment and started abusing the collection boy in filthy language and tried to man-handle him on 25.05.2012 and threatened that if he visited the shop again, he would be killed. Subsequently, the petitioner kept his mobile in switch off mode and not made himself available in the shop. The neighbours of the shop of the petitioner informed the collection boy that the petitioner was not coming to the shop and was not opening the shop. The petitioner with a pre-plan and an ulterior motive and malafide intention caused wrongful loss and duped the 1st respondent to a tune of Rs.8,95,463/- and threatened his collection boy with dire consequences. The police, after investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-complainant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

1st respondent took cheques bearing Nos.203919 to 203925 from the petitioner for due performance of the business transactions. The cheques were issued in the name of the company without indicating the amount. The understanding was that the petitioner was to sell the product and thereafter he had to pay the amount based on the sale of the product. It was a new product in the market. As disputes arose after supply of