Telangana High Court
Dhana Laxmi Mahadev vs State Of Telangana And Another on 1 November, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.10984 OF 2018
Between:
Smt.Dhana Laxmi Mahadev. ...Petitioner
And
State of Telangana, rep. by
Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad and another. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 01.11.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 10984 of 2018
% Dated 01.11.2022
# Smt.Dhana Laxmi Mahadev ... Petitioner
And
$ State of Telangana, rep. by
Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad and another ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri S.Viplav Simha Reddy.
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Sri Y.Rama Rao,
Learned counsel for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITIONER No.10984 of 2018
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash proceedings in
CC No.1090 of 2016 on the file of XXV Metropolitan Magistrate,
Kukatpally, Miyapur, Cyberabad.
2. The case against the petitioner is that she joined as servant
maid in the house of L.W.1/complainant ten years prior to the
complaint in question. It is stated by the complainant that she is
the founder of M/s.Mirrors Saloon and Spa, which is a proprietary
concern and doing business in the Jubilee Hills area. The said firm
renders services of beauty care. Several employees were trained by
the complainant firm and in the said process, huge expenditure was
incurred every year only for the purpose of training the employees.
The defacto complainant has employed nearly 150 employees in his
organization after training them.
3. It is alleged that the petitioner was trained with international
standards and also sent to International training at London and
Singapore. The service contract agreement was entered into for a
period of two years and also extended from time to time. However,
the petitioner with the help of her husband and one Sudha
conspired and started tarnishing the image of the defacto
complainant. Further, they set up their own business in beauty
care in Madhapur. The petitioner and another namely Sudha, who
are her employees stopped attending to their duties and also filed
two complaints viz., FIR No.540 of 2014 and FIR No.539 of 2014
against defacto complainant and also threatened to file private
complaint under SCs & STs (POA) Act. The petitioner, though
trained by the defacto complainant with the hope that she would
serve the said firm and also entered into an agreement for serving
the firm for a period of two years, however established her own
beauty salon. The petitioner was indulging in pressure tactics to
squeeze money from her and also defaming her in the society. For
the reason of false promises made to serve the defacto complainant
firm and making defacto complainant invest huge amounts in her
training, amounts to cheating and misappropriation. Accordingly,
on the basis of the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant,
police filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 408 and
506 of IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
petitioner has put up her own business in 'beauty care' and since
she was a competitor in the line of beauty business, complaint was
filed making false allegations. For the said reason, case has to be
quashed.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the investigation
is completed, charge sheet is filed, it is for the trial Court to come to
a conclusion whether the offences alleged are made out or not after
examining the witnesses by the trial Court. Accordingly, prayed to
dismiss the petition.
6. Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent
submits that the proceedings are undergoing before the trial Court
and it is for the trial Court to take a call on the complicity of these
accused and the Court cannot interfere at this juncture to quash
the proceedings against the petitioners.
7. The main allegation against the petitioner is that she got
training in the field of 'beauty care' and expenditure was incurred
by the defacto complainant to train her. However, instead of serving
the firm of the defacto complainant, the petitioner has set up her
own business and resultantly, it caused loss to the defacto
complainant firm. The petitioner also indulged in filing false
complaints which were registered and further she was threatening
to defame and cause harm to the defacto complainant.
8. To attract an offence under Section 408 of IPC, whoever being
a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in
any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or wit any
dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect
of that property would be punishable for the offence under Section
408 of IPC.
9. The allegations made in the statement of defacto complainant
and other witnesses would only go to show that the petitioner was
trained at the expenses of the defacto complainant firm. Even
assuming that the petitioner was trained at its expenditure, it
would not amount to an offence of criminal breach of trust
punishable under Section 408 of IPC. Admittedly, petitioner was
working with the defacto complainant since ten years and there was
a contract agreement to work with her which was renewed every
two years. Even accepting the statement that the petitioner was
trained at the expense of defacto complainant's firm and did not
work in accordance with the contract, would not make out any
criminal offence and the violation of any conditions of contract, the
defacto complainant can approach civil court seeking damages.
Except stating that the firm incurred several lakhs on training the
petitioner, no specific details are given. Acquiring expertise in any
field after being paid for training cannot be said to be property
entrusted to the said person. Admittedly no money was paid or
entrusted to the Petitioner but the allegation is that expenditure for
training was borne by the firm.
10. As seen from the allegations, the petitioner threatened with
filing criminal cases. Admittedly, two criminal cases were already
filed, which were registered. The apparent reason, which can be
culled out from the circumstances and the statements of the
witnesses is that the complaint was made due to business rivalry
and the petitioner running business in the lines of the defacto
complainant firm. Competition in business is common and
petitioner, who has set up her own business is responsible for
running her business and establishing such firm after working with
the defacto complainant for nearly ten years, cannot in any manner
be said that it amounts to either misappropriation. Further filing
complaints aggrieved by any acts of a person, will not amount to
criminal intimidation. Vague allegation is made that petitioner
threatened to file complaint under SCST Act. Such statements are
not sufficient to attract an offence U/S 506 of IPC.
11. For the said reasons, no offence is made out on the basis of
the allegations/statements made by the witnesses and
consequently, the proceedings against petitioner in CC No.1090 of
2016 on the file of XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally,
Miyapur, Cyberabad are hereby quashed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:01.11.2022
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITON No.10984 of 2018
Date:01.11.2022.
kvs
