THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.10936 and 10937 of 2017

COMMON ORDER:

Criminal Petition No.10936 of 2017 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.8 and Criminal Petition No.10937 of 2017 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.11, 13 and 21 aggrieved by the orders dated 30.11.2016 and 04.05.2016 in Crl.R.P.Nos.24 and 11 of 2016 confirming the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, dated 20.01.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.543 of 2015 in C.C.No.392 of 2015, where-under the discharge applications filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.8, 11, 13 and 21 were dismissed. The issue raised in both the cases is one and the same. Hence, both the criminal petitions are clubbed together and disposed of the same by way of a common order.

2. Brief facts of the case:

Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak at Sangareddy stating that his company, a registered start-up formed by two young entrepreneurs, was induced by the petitioners and other accused to purchase a 2 TPD Pyrolysis Oil Production Plant for a consideration of Rs.41,98,900/-. Accused No.1 is a proprietary concern claiming to be a pioneer in manufacturing Pyrolysis oil plants. Accused No.2 is proprietor of accused No.1 firm, accused Nos.3 and 4, who are sons of accused No.2, are Directors, and accused Nos.5 to 22 are employees, who actively abetted the transactions. From the very inception, the petitioners and other accused dishonestly conspired to cheat respondent No.2 by misrepresenting the nature of their business through multiple dubious entities and websites with overlapping addresses, by issuing misleading quotations with exaggerated claims of efficiency and profitability, by delaying supply of machinery, by sending defective and substandard parts without delivering essential components, and by supplying equipment with inherent defects, which made installation and commissioning impossible. Despite payment of the full sale consideration under purchase order dated 05.10.2011, the petitioners and other accused dragged the process for nearly 18 months between March, 2012 and October, 2013 with false assurances and partial payments, before abandoning the project altogether. The acts of the petitioners and other accused thus disclose a clear conspiracy to cheat and dishonestly induce respondent No.2 to part with money for defective plant, thereby causing wrongful loss to respondent No.2 complainant and wrongful gain to themselves. The petitioners filed application i.e., Crl.M.P.No.543 of 2015, before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sangareddy, seeking discharge them in C.C.No.392 of 2015 and the same was dismissed on 20.01.2016. Questioning the same, the petitioner/accused No.8 filed Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2016 and the petitioners/accused Nos.11, 13 and 21 filed Crl.R.P.No.11 of 2016 before the learned Sessions Judge and both the said cases were dismissed on 30.11.2016 and 04.05.2016 respectively.

3. Heard Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners: 4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence, much less, the alleged offences and they are only employees of accused No.1 firm and they discharged their duties, which were allotted to them. There is no conspiracy between the petitioners and accused Nos.2 and 3 and there are no specific allegations against the petitioners to attract the ingredients of Sections 420, 418 and 415 read with 34, 37, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

4.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint implicating the petitioners as accused by making bald allegations that they were conspirato