DR.B.SIVA SANKARA RAO, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.157 of 2013 of Central Crime Station, DD, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 406 IPC, from the report of 1st respondent -defacto complainants dated 28.10.2013 by name M/s.High Tech Medicals Private Limited & VR Packing Company Private Limited, represented by its directors Purnima Mantena and Indira P. Raju to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad which reads as under: (1) (a) that the defacto complainants -Purnima Mantena and Indira P.Raju, Directors of High Tech Medicals Private Limited and VR Packing Company Private Limited, having their office premises at flat Nos.1501 to 1503, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, where they keep all records, files and computers and running their operations pertaining to family trusts, private limited companies etc., at the above address for the last several years and there is essential records without which the activities have standstill and those are all liable to income tax authorities for payment of income tax and for filing returns. That the defacto complainants are apprehending that they would be liable as directors and beneficiaries for payment of penalties and those records and software computers are worth of more than a crore of rupees and if no record is available, the employees could not function in the premises. Suddenly, all their office records were found stolen and the stolen records are suspected to be under the control of one person Mrs.Pushpa (accused No.2) at H.No.2 -2 -12/3/A and 2 -2 -12/3/C Durgabai Deshmukh Colony, Hyderabad and they understand that accused No. 1 -Dr. Reunka Datla and her secretaries, drivers all came to the premises early in the morning and removed the entire record. (1) (b) that said accused No. 1 -Dr. Renuka Datla as a shareholder and director in some companies has no right whatsoever to steal and remove the records from the office premises, hence to investigate the matter and take action and to hand over the records. Pursuant to which, the above crime is registered and impugning the same, the accused persons 1 and 2 sought for quash the criminal proceedings in Crime No.157 of 2013.
(2.) (a) The contentions in the quash petition are that the petitioners are innocent and falsely implicated; that 1st petitioner/accused No.1 - Renuka Datla and her husband -Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla are the promoters of V.R. Packings Company Private Limited, incorporated in the year 1983 with articles of association, memorandum and certificate of incorporation enclosed to the quash petition. 2. (b) The defacto complainants 1 and 2 hold no shares in the company and it is amply reflected in Form 20B filed before the Registrar of Companies, as per annual filing return as on 31.03.2012. The 1st petitioner/ accused No.1, shareholder of the company and said form 20 -B is filed as document No.3, which is also enclosed for reference for that 1st petitioner/ accused No.1 is highly acclaimed academician worked as Head of Department, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medical Research at the Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) Hyderabad and she has been Executive Director of Biological E Limited since 1991, a reputed Pharmaceutical Company with a brand and image of its own through out the Country where the defacto complainants are share holders, none other than the daughters of the 1st petitioner/ accused No.1 herein and they have a grouse and grievance with regard to that company, as 1st petitioner/ accused No.1 has lodged a criminal complaint dated 10.04.2013 against them and their henchmen for their criminal acts before Chikkadpally Police Station, which is also enclosed to the quash petition. 2. (c) That 1st petitioner/ accused No.1 has been consistently raising the issue of illegal appointment of defacto complainants as Directors in the Biological E Limited and the eight letters were written by her to them and others, which shows the defacto complainants displeasure and grouse towards 1st petitioner/accused No. 1 from 22.08.2013 and the letters also enclosed to the quash petition. 2. (d) That the defacto complainant and others having been apprehending the legal action by the 1st petitioner, reflected by 15 caveats copies filed against 1st petitioner, before various forums, which also enclosed to the quash petition. A reply to those letters sent to 1st petitioner/accused No.1 by one of their yes men, G.V. Rao on behalf of M/s. Biological E Limited dated 30.10.2013 shows already a Criminal Case is contemplated by the 1st petitioner/accused No.1 against said G.V. Rao and another for filing false Form -32 online application by virtue of which, the defacto complainants are proclaiming themselves as Directors of Biological E Limited, the same is also enclosed to the quash petition. The 1st petitioner/accused No.1 and her husband created several trusts and after the demise of her husband, 1st petitioner/ accused No.1 is running as a single trustee of the trust. 2. (e) She further averred that: Above facts testify that the present Criminal Case is nothing but preemptive strike by filing a false case to malign the 1st petitioner/ accused No.1 and the two charges levelled against of theft and breach of trust are untenable. There is no any entrustment and in the absence of which, there is no any criminal breach of trust. Even the alleged theft is unthinkable. The 2nd petitioner/ accused No.2 is an old lady of 71 years, who works as a house keeper and care taker of 1st petitioner/ accused No.1 and is roped unnecessarily. Theft and breach of trust are both unreconcilable even to register the crime for both sections and even a document is entrusted for arguments sake, in the absence of showing converted or enchased or misappropriated, the question of breach of trust does not arise. The report given to police is with oblique motive and malafide invocation of powers of police to investigate without even any basis to suspect the alleged offences and the same is nothing but abuse of process and the forcible entrustment of the case with a direction to investigate a person not the Investigating Officer is an abuse for personal benefits apart from the present case is a counter blast to criminal acts of defacto complainants and GV Rao in admitting the defacto complainants as directors of Biological E Limited to anticipate the action. The 1st petitioner is also aged about 67 years and both of them are unlikely to move out and they are apprehending arrest and thereby, the interim direction to be granted and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
(3.) (a) Counter affidavit is filed by the Investigating Officer with a petition dated 16.09.2014 to vacate the interim stay which reads that (a) After registration of the crime, the 1st petitioner/ accused No.1, who is with the assistance of accused No.2 cause removed the records from the office premises on 27.07.2013 at early morning hours was asked to hand over the records and other items for which the 1st petitioner/ accused No.1 refused. 3. (b) In the course of investigation, ten witnesses were examined including two directors of the defacto complainant's entity and even investigation completed, charge sheet could not be filed as the accused persons in the mean time filed the quash petition and obtained interim stay on 20.06.2014 in Crl.M.P. No. 12506 of 2013 in Crl.P. No. 13549 of 2013 and thereby, the stay is to be vacated. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and also learned counsel for 1st respondent -de facto complainant represented by two directors Purnima Mantena and Indira P. Raju, and learned public prosecutor representing the 2nd respondent. Perused the material on record.;