ORDER : K. Sujana, J. The lis involved in these two petitions being one and the same, both the criminal petitions are heard together and are being decided by way of this common order. 2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) whereunder, Criminal Petition No.2655 of 2024 is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and Criminal Petition No.2634 of 2024 is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.3 in F.I.R.No.27/2024 on the file of the Manthani Police Station, Ramagundam Commissionerate, Peddapalli District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.02.2024 the complainant/respondent NO.2 who is the District Manager of the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Peddapalli District, lodged complaint against accused No.1 - Sri B.Prakash Rao (petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.No.2655/2024) accused NO.2 – Sri B.Varaprasad Rao (petitioner No.2 in Crl.P.No.2655/2024) and accused No.3 – Sri M.Suman Kumar (petitioner in Crl.P.No.2634/2024). The accused No.1 is the Managing Partner and accused Nos.2 and 3 are partners in Maruthi Industries. 4. It is stated in the complaint that on 09.01.2024 when the respondent No.2 visited Maruthi Industries, Kuchirajpalli, Manthani, he found that there is no paddy in the rice mill which was supplied by the Government to the said rice mill for custom milling during khariff season 2022-2023 under the Minimum Support Price (for short ‘MSP’) and that the rice was not delivered to FCI Godowns and that the accused persons misappropriated about 70,893.56 quintals of paddy, worth Rs.21,64,05,173.00/- and dishonestly caused loss and wrongful gain and cheated the Government, as such, requested the Police to take necessary action. 5. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered FIR.No.27/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of IPC. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that quantity of 75174.80 quintals of paddy was purchased under MSP and the same was handed over to accused Nos.1 and 2 for custom milling but there was a shortage of 69762.76 quintals of quantity of paddy, as such, came to the conclusion that accused persons sold away the Government paddy unauthorizedly and accordingly, lodged complaint before the Police and the Police in turn, registered FIR.No.27/2024 against the accused persons. Aggrieved thereby, the accused Nos.1 and 2 filed Crl.P.No.2655 of 2024 and accused No.3 filed Crl.P.NO.2634 of 2024. 6. Heard Sri G.Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel for petitioners in Crl.P.No.2655 of 2024, Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.P.No.2634 of 2024 and Sri P.Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 – State in both the matters. 7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Crl.P.No.2655 of 2024 (accused Nos.1 and 2) would submit that though the de facto complainant is authorized to recover the balance amount as per the provision available in the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, respondent No.2 chose to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused persons only to arm twist them to recover the money without following the due process of law. He further submitted that an agreement was entered into between the accused Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.2 which provides disqualifying debarring and instead of taking recourse to the same, the respondent NO.2 has lodged complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2 and the same is unwarranted and abuse of process of law. He contended that without proper cognizance and without properly investigating the matter, the respondent NO.1 registered a case against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay an amount of Rs.21,64,05,173/-. He asserted that the contents of the complaint do not attract the penal provisions under the Sections 406, 409 and 420 and that only under the undue influence of respondent No.2, the respondent NO.1 has registered case against accused Nos.1 and 2 for no fault on their part. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. 8. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner in Crl.P.NO.2634 of 2024 (accused No.3) would submit that accused No.3 along with another were the owners of Maruthi Industries which is a registered partnership firm that was registered on 21.08.2008 but in the month of November, 2022 the petitioner and his another partner intended to do some other business, and accordingly, they sold it away and then one B.Prakash Rao and B.Vara Prasad Rao (accused Nos.1 and 2) have shown their readiness to purchase the rice mill by being included as partners in the firm. He further submitted that the petitioner has kept only 2% of share of profit and loss and with that agreement a partnership deed was reconstituted on 05.11.2022. 9. In other words, the contention of learned counsel for accused No.3 is that the accused No.3 is no way concerned with the business of M/s.Maruthi Industries and Sri B.Prakash Rao (accused No.1) is the managing partner of the firm who is actively doing the business. Further, if the said Maruthi Industries commits any default in supplying the milled rice to the Civil Supplies Corporation, the accused No.3 cannot be held responsible for the same as he has no role to play in the day to day affairs and business of the said M/s.Maruthi Industries. 10. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for petitioner/accused relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalit Chaturvedi and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171 whereunder, in paragraph No.10 it was held that “the chargesheet also refers to Section 406 of the IPC, but without pointing out how the ingredients of said section are satisfied. No details and particulars are mentioned. There are decisions which hold that the same act or transaction cannot result in an offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust simultaneously. For the offence of cheating, dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction, whereas, in case of criminal breach of trust there must exist a relationship between the parties whereby one party entrusts another with the property as per law, albeit dishonest intention comes later. In this case entrustment is missing, in fact it is not even alleged. It is a case of sale of goods. The chargesheet does refer to Section 506 of the IPC relying upon the averments in the complaint. However, no details and particulars are given, when and on which date and place the threats were given. Without the said details and particulars, it is apparent to us, that these allegations of threats etc. have been made only with an intent to activate police machinery for recovery of money” whereas, in the present case, the Government entrusted the paddy to the petitioners and they failed to supply the rice. 11. Without the said details and particulars, it is apparent to us, that these allegations of threats etc. have been made only with an intent to activate police machinery for recovery of money” whereas, in the present case, the Government entrusted the paddy to the petitioners and they failed to supply the rice. 11. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No.3 contended that Section 409 is not applicable in the case of accused No.3 as there is no entrustment of liability and there exists only a contractual liability on his part as there is a contract between the Civil Supplies Department and the firm i.e., M/s.Maruthi Industries, under which the Department has to provide paddy to the rice mill and they in turn, would supply the rice. Thereby, there is no way that Section 409 attracts in the case of accused No.3. Further, he also relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Raghavender vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI (2021) 18 SCC 70 , wherein, no opinion was expressed with regard to Sections 409 and 420 of IPC though it was argued that Sections 409 and 420 of IPC cannot go together. The paragraph No.78 of the said judgement reads as under: 78. We may at this stage, briefly note that the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had raised another contention, namely, that the charges under Section 409 and Section 420IPC cannot go together. He eloquently argued that the essential ingredients of the two offences are conflicting in nature. Section 409 (or 405) IPC deals with offences where the accused has been “entrusted” with the property and Section 420IPC deals with offences where the accused has “dishonestly induced” the victim/complainant to depart with the property in question. It was, therefore, argued that an accused cannot be charged under both the sections simultaneously. This contention, however, has been rendered academic in the light of the aforestated discussion and conclusion(s). We thus do not express any opinion and leave this question open for adjudication in an appropriate case.” 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that having regard to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilip Hariramani Vs. This contention, however, has been rendered academic in the light of the aforestated discussion and conclusion(s). We thus do not express any opinion and leave this question open for adjudication in an appropriate case.” 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that having regard to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilip Hariramani Vs. Bank of Baroda 2022 SCC OnLine SC 579, in the present case, as the petitioner/accused No.3 is not a partner in M/s.Maruthi Industries, and he only holds 2% of share in the firm, as such, he is no way concerned with the day to day business of M/s.Maruthi Industries. Further, if there is any misappropriation done by accused Nos.1 and 2, there is no vicarious liability on the part of accused No.3. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.3. 13. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent NO.1- State, in both the matters, submitted that all the accused persons are involved in misappropriation of funds/public money and that the Government has entrusted the paddy to them under the MSP but they misused the same and misappropriated huge funds, thereby, causing loss to Government which in turn affects the public at large. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the quash petitions. 14. In support of his contention, learned Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sadhupati Nageswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2012 8 SCC 547 wherein, the relevant paragraph No.21 reads as under: “21. Section 409 enables the court to award imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to ten years along with fine. Considering the fact that the appellant was awarded imprisonment for 6 months along with a fine of Rs 1000 only, we feel that the same is not excessive. On the other hand, we are of the view that persons dealing with the property of the Government and entrusted with the task of distribution under FFWS, it is but proper on their part to maintain true accounts, hand over coupons to the Mandal Revenue Office and to execute the same fully and without any lapse. Such recourse has not been followed by the appellant. Such recourse has not been followed by the appellant. The courts cannot take lenient view in awarding sentence on the ground of sympathy or delay, particularly, if it relates to distribution of essential commodities under any scheme of the Government intended to benefit the public at large. Accordingly, while rejecting the request of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, we hold that there is no ground for reduction of sentence.” 15. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the specific contention of learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.1 and 2 is that the respondent No.2 has not followed the due procedure and without taking recourse to the provisions available under the Revenue Recovery Act, the respondent No.2 initiated criminal proceedings and that the respondent No.1 has registered crime for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of IPC without properly investigating the case. 16. Perusal of the record would reveal that there is an agreement between the Civil Supplies Department and the accused No.1 for supplying the paddy under the Custom Milling Rice Scheme for Khariff and Rabi Marketing Seasons 2022-23 and the signatory to the said agreement is accused No.1 and in respect of the said agreement, the accused No.1 had even issued two cheques in favour of Civil Supplies Corporation towards security. In other words, the accused No.1 undertakes to deliver 100% of the resultant rice against the paddy delivered to his firm by the Government, whereas, admittedly, it is seen that rice was not supplied. In addition, according to the panchanama conducted by the Civil Supplies Department, neither the paddy, nor the rice was found in the rice mill. 17. That apart, perusal of the agreement that took place between the Civil Supplies Department and M/s.Maruthi Industries would reveal that there is a clause whereunder it is stated that ‘both the parties have agreed that in the event of any dispute with regard to this agreement, the same shall be referred to an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator shall be appointed by Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Government of Telagana/VC & Managing Director, TSCSCL’. That being so, in the same agreement, there is another clause appended to clause 5 which enables the Department to initiate criminal proceedings. The Arbitrator shall be appointed by Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Government of Telagana/VC & Managing Director, TSCSCL’. That being so, in the same agreement, there is another clause appended to clause 5 which enables the Department to initiate criminal proceedings. Therefore, it can be said that there is no force in the contention that the initiation of criminal proceedings is against the procedure contemplated. 18. Further, with regard to the aspect of the applicability and non-applicability of Section 409 of IPC, having regard to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadhupati Nageswara (supra) which is similar to the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that Section 409 is not applicable to the present cases. Therefore, there is no force in this contention as well. 19. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is pertinent to note that the averments in the complaint show that there is misappropriation of funds/public in the present cases and basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the respondent NO.1 has rightly registered crime against the accused persons vide FIR.No.27/2024. 20. In view thereof, Crl.P.No.2655 of 2024 filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and the Crl.P.No.2634 of 2024 filed by accused No.3 are dismissed. 21. However, having regard to the fact that the present case is still under investigation and the accused Nos.2 and 3 are not the Managing Partners of M/s.Maruthi Industries, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 scrupulously. However, the accused Nos.2 and 3 are directed to co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when required by furnishing information and documents as sought by the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.