Judgment : 1. The accused in C.C.No.6269 of 1989 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, have filed this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid C.C.No.6269 of 1989 and quash the same. 2. The respondents have filed the private complaint against the petitioners 1 to 4 arraying them as accused 1 to 4. The relevant allegations in it are briefly as follows: Accused 1 to 3 are partners of M/s.Jayaram Steel Rolling Mills, viz. the fourth accused. By agreement, dated 16.3.1983, the second complainant entered into a contract with the fourth accused of which accused 1 to 3 are partners, for the purpose of twistingtiscon bars on payment of agreed charges. The arrangement was that complainant company would supply to the accused untwisted tiscon bars in standard lengths and accused would twist the same and deliver to various customers of the second complainant as per the delivery orders issued by the second complainant. The agreement also provides that the twisted or finished materials will be delivered by the accused to the customers of the second complainant against the delivery orders issued by Madras Office of the second complainant. The agreement provides for other terms also. In pursuance of the said agreement, the complainant gave delivery to the accused various quantities of untwisted tiscon bars. The accused persons complied with the delivery orders issued by Madras office of the complainant company. Any goods remaining with the accused after such compliance continued to be held by them in trust for and on behalf of the second complainant. On 7.12.1987, the Audit Department of the complainant company carried out a physical stock verification of the tiscon bars delivered to the accused, in the presence of the first accused. It was found that there was a shortage to an extent of 28.071 metric tonnes of untwisted bars valued at Rs.1,61,619.06. On 14.3.1988, another stock verification was made and there was a shortage of 331.249 metric tonnes of twisted tiscon bars valued at Rs.21,47,722.47. It also came to the notice of the complainant company that on 24.3.1988, a consignment of untwisted tiscon bars despatched by the complainant company under Railway-Receipt dated 18.1.1988 containing 57.900 metric tonnes untwisted tiscon bars valued at Rs.3,59,559 was received by the accused persons on 2.2.1988. It also came to the notice of the complainant company that on 24.3.1988, a consignment of untwisted tiscon bars despatched by the complainant company under Railway-Receipt dated 18.1.1988 containing 57.900 metric tonnes untwisted tiscon bars valued at Rs.3,59,559 was received by the accused persons on 2.2.1988. The accused persons suppressed the facts of receipt of the said consignment by non-accounting of the said materials in its monthly statements sent to complainant company. The accused persons have in criminal conspiracy with each other and in common design have sold the said materials and criminally misappropriated the proceeds thereof to themselves. They have thus criminally misappropriated and converted to their own use a total quantity of untwisted tiscon bars valued at Rs.25,00,189.64. The complainant had entrusted to the accused persons the aforesaid steel materials in trust and had given them dominion over the same. The accused persons dishonestly and criminally misappropriated the same and converted the entire quantity of materials to their own use. So they are guilty of offences punishable under Secs.120-B, 405, 406, 409 and 420, I.P.C. They have also committed offence punishable under Sec.409, I.P.C. Hence the complaint. 3. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that regarding these transactions, the second complainant had filed suit against the fourth accused herein and others in the Calcutta High Court in Suit No.214 of 1988 and in that suit negligence has been alleged and there was no allegation of any criminal misappropriation or other allegations or conspiracy or breach of trust or cheating and now a different stand has been taken. He would further contend that this is a case of breach of contract and so a civil suit alone will lie. It is his further contention that to make out an offence under Sec.409, I.P.C., the accused must be an agent and there are no materials to make out such a case. Per conra, Mr.N.T. Vanamamalai, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, would contend that in the civil suit there is absolutely no necessity to make allegations with regard to the crimnal liability of the petitioners herein and they are not at all relevant in that suit and hence they were not made, in that plaint. Per conra, Mr.N.T. Vanamamalai, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, would contend that in the civil suit there is absolutely no necessity to make allegations with regard to the crimnal liability of the petitioners herein and they are not at all relevant in that suit and hence they were not made, in that plaint. He further contended that same set of facts gave rise to civil proceedings as well as criminal proceedings and the filing cf the civil suit will not preclude the filing of a criminal complaint in cases where criminal liability is also there. It is his further contention that allegations are made in the complaint showing that accused were agents of the second complainant and hence offence under Sec.409 is also made out. 4. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 16.3.1933. A true copy of the same is filed in the typed set. I shall refer to the relevant portions in it. As per terms of this agreement, the fourth accused is under obligation to send monthly statement indicating opening stock, delivery and closing stock of urtwisted tiscons supplied to the fourth accused, for twisting as well as of twisted produce in the preforma given in the agreement itself. The agreement which is in the form of a letter written by the second complainant to the fourth accused also reads as follows: “No right of ownership of goods rests with you whether in twisted form, or untwisted form. We reserve the right to inspect. Our materials at your works, Godown, at our convenience. You are to provide our Inspector with all facilities for checking stocks, etc. You shall on no account pledge, hypothecate etc., the materials or deal with the same in any manner except to hold the goods in stock and deliver them on our behalf as desired by us. You shall hold the same i n trust on our behalf and exhibit on the outside doors of the godown in prominent manner a board indicating our ownership of the goods. You shall not also have any authority to make any commitment on our behalf except to the extent specially authorised by us in writing.” In the backdrop of the above clauses, the allegations in the complaint are to be considered. The allegations made in paras.8, 9 and 10 are very much relevant. You shall not also have any authority to make any commitment on our behalf except to the extent specially authorised by us in writing.” In the backdrop of the above clauses, the allegations in the complaint are to be considered. The allegations made in paras.8, 9 and 10 are very much relevant. As per allegations made in paras 8,9 and 10, from the physical verifications, made on 7.12.87, and 14.3.88. twisted bars to a value of Rs. 1,61,619.06 and Rs.21,47,722.47 were found. As per the allegations made in para 10, untwisted tiscon bars valued at Rs.3,59,559 received by the accused persons on 2.2.1988 was suppressed in the monthly statement. The accused do not have right of ownership. They are molding it on behalf of the complainant. That would amount to their holding as an agent of the complainant. This shortage and suppression of the receipt of the goods together with positive allegations of conspiracy made in para 11 of the complaint do all make out offences punishable under Secs.120-B, 405, 406, 409 and 420, I.P.C. It is not a mere breach of trust giving rise to only a civil suit. There are specific allegations in the complaint disclosing ingredients of the offences complained of. In any proceedings on complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence. This is not the stage to meticulously analyse the materials available and find out whether the prosecution will end in conviction or acquittal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the ruling reported Madhav Rao v. Sambhaji Rao Madhav Rao v. Sambhaji Rao, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 709. In it the apex court has held that the legal position iswell-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. The Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. is I have already indicated, in this case, the allegations made prima facie established the offences alleged. On a close scrutiny of the complaint, and the agreement referred to supra, I find that there i s no legal infirmity or want of necessary ingrediem s of the offences alleged in the complaint. Hence it cannot be quashed the threshold. 6. In view of the above, the petitioner is dismissed.