ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. 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 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 conspirators and abettors and there is no material on record to establish any conspiracy between the petitioners and accused Nos.2 and3. 4.3. The petitioners filed application i.e., Crl.M.P.No.543 of 2015, seeking discharge them in C.C.No.392 of 2015, wherein, they specifically contended that respondent No.2 had not produced any material to show that the petitioners had any role in the alleged offences. The entire allegations are levelled against accused Nos.1 to 4 only. 4.4. The learned Magistrate, without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioners, dismissed the discharge application without assigning any reasons. The entire allegations are levelled against accused Nos.1 to 4 only. 4.4. The learned Magistrate, without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioners, dismissed the discharge application without assigning any reasons. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge also failed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioners in Crl.R.P.Nos.11 and 24 of 2016 and simply dismissed the said revision petitions by confirming the order of the trial Court and the same is contrary to law. 4.5. He also submitted that now the petitioners are residing in the State of Maharashtra. By virtue of implicating them as an accused in the present case, they are facing very difficult to attend the Court proceedings by travelling a long distance. 4.6. He further submitted that entire complaint does not constitute any offence against the petitioners and also there is no vicarious liability. The only allegation made against the petitioner/accused No.8 is that he sent four e-mails to respondent No.2. Mere sending the mails by the petitioner/accused No.8 does not constitute the alleged offences, especially the petitioner/accused No.8 discharged his duties as an employee of accused No.1 firm. Respondent No.2 implicated the petitioners to dissolve the disputes between him and accused No.1 firm and accused Nos.2 to 4 by making omnibus allegations. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, accused No.1 firm had supplied the machinery to respondent No.2. Basing upon the alleged defects in the material/equipment supplied by accused No.1 firm, respondent No.2 is not entitled to implicate the petitioners as accused, especially they are only employees and there is no dishonest intention on their part. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.392 of 2015 against the petitioners is clear abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 4.7. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments. 1. Vishnu Kumar Shukla and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , (2023) 15 SCC 502 2. Vipin Sahni and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 511 3. State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi , (2005) 1 SCC 568 4. Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao , (2012) 9 SCC 512 ; and 5. Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra , (2008) 10 SCC 394 5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2 5.1. State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi , (2005) 1 SCC 568 4. Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao , (2012) 9 SCC 512 ; and 5. Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra , (2008) 10 SCC 394 5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2 5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not disputed the transaction between accused No.1 firm and respondent No.2 and they are not disputing their relationship with accused No.1 firm. The petitioners along with other accused with a dishonest intention fraudulently conspired and induced respondent No.2 to purchase the machinery i.e., Pyrolysis Oil Extraction Plant, which produces 2 Ton per day (2 TPD) oil, and he has given Rs.41,98,900/- in the name of accused No.1 firm. However, the said machinery supplied by the petitioners and other accused is a defective one. In spite of repeated demands/requests made by respondent No.2, the petitioners and other accused have not taken any steps to rectify the same. The petitioners along with accused Nos.2 and 3 were present at the time of purchasing the machinery and they were well aware about the defects of the machinery supplied by accused No.1 firm. 5.2. He further submitted that the petitioners along with other accused conspired to ensure that faulty machinery was supplied to respondent No.2, they have made half- hearted irresponsible attempts while installing the machinery. The petitioners were present at the site on a number of occasions and accused Nos.2 to 4 conspiring with the petitioners received a huge amount from respondent No.2. There are specific allegations levelled against each of the petitioners in the complaint. To substantiate the allegations made in the complaint, respondent No.2 filed material documents. The petitioners filed discharge application, vide Crl.M.P.No.543 of 2015, with false allegations. Learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the discharge application on 20.01.2016 by giving cogent reasons. Aggrieved thereby, 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. After considering the grounds raised by the petitioners, the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the said criminal revision petitions. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the criminal petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed. Analysis: 6. After considering the grounds raised by the petitioners, the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the said criminal revision petitions. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the criminal petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed. Analysis: 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2/de facto complaint lodged a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. on 11.02.2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, wherein it is stated that accused No.1 is a proprietary concern and dealing with business of manufacturing Pyrolysis Oil Extracting Plant and machinery and claims to have successfully executed on a turnkey basis, the supply, installation and commissioning of various plants of capacity of One Ton Per Day (1 TPD), Two Ton Per Day (2 TPD), Five Ton Per Day (5 TPD) and Ten Ton Per Day (10 TPD) Pyrolysis Oil Production Plants for its various customers in India as well as abroad. The allegations made against the petitioners are that they along with other accused made a bogus sale of a Two Ton Per Day (2 TPD) Pyrolysis Oil Production Plant to respondent No.2 for a sum of Rs.41,98,900/- and executed agreements. The machinery supplied by the petitioners and other accused to respondent No.2 is a defective one. From the date of inception, there is a conspiracy between petitioners and accused Nos.1 to 4 and there is a dishonest intention to cheat respondent No.2 supplied the defective machinery and received substantial amount of Rs.41,98,000/-. 7. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statements of respondent No.2 and after going through the documents, took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners and other accused. Subsequently, the petitioners approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.6206 of 2015 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.392 of 2015. However, the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the above said criminal petition with the liberty to avail all the remedies available to them under law including filing of the discharge petition and also petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court. Accordingly, this Court dismissed the Criminal Petition on 23.11.2015 as withdrawn and granted liberty as sought by the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, this Court dismissed the Criminal Petition on 23.11.2015 as withdrawn and granted liberty as sought by the petitioners. 8. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.543 of 2015 seeking to discharge them from C.C.No.392 of 2015 by pleading that they have no connection with accused No.1 firm. The learned Magistrate, after considering the contentions of the respective parties, Sections 227 and 245 of Cr.P.C. and the judgments cited by both the parties, held that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioners, as they are shown as accused and abettors of offences alleged against accused Nos.1 to 4 and at this stage, based on the material on record, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief seeking to discharge them from C.C.No.392 of 2015. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, 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 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak District at Sangareddy. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the allegations in the complaint and the transaction between the parties involving lakhs of rupees, held that the petitioners, being the employees of accused No.1 firm, played a role by sending e-mails to respondent No.2 and the material placed by respondent No.2 is very much sufficient that they were present in the work site and accused No.2, being the proprietor of accused No.1 firm, did not dispute the transaction and further held that whether the petitioners were employees of accused No.1 firm, whether they had any role in respect of the transaction between accused No.1 firm and other accused Nos.1 to 4, will be revealed during the course of trial, but not at the stage of framing of charges and dismissed Crl.R.P.No.11 of 2016 on 04.05.2016 and other Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2016 on 30.11.2016. 10. The specific case of respondent No.2 is that the petitioners with a conspiracy supplied the defective machinery and induced him to pay an amount of Rs.41,98,000/- to accused No.1 firm and the petitioners, being employees of accused No.1 firm, sent mails on 22.11.2010, 25.11.2010, 26.11.2010 and 06.12.2010 and they were also present at the work site on a number of occasions, thereby they have conspired with other accused and cheated him from the date of inception. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge, after taking into consideration the material produced by respondent No.2, came to the conclusion that the petitioners were ex-employees of accused No.1 firm. 11. The core contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were employees of accused No.1 firm and they discharged their duties, which were allotted by accused No.1 firm, and that they are not conspirators and abettors are concerned, whether there is any conspiracy between the petitioners and accused Nos.1 to 4 or not, whether they are abettors or not, are disputed facts and the same cannot be adjudicated in the present criminal petition exercising the powers conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the same have to be revealed after a full-fledged trial. 12. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the nature of the allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint is purely civil in nature and respondent No.2 has already filed a suit in O.S.No.472 of 2016 against accused Nos.1 to 4 for recovery of amount of Rs.2,44,24,871/- and the same is pending, hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, is contrary to law, is concerned, basing upon pendency of civil case, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings, as both the cases are different and distinctive. 13. Similarly, the other contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have not received any sale proceeds from respondent No.2 and entire sale proceeds were paid to accused No.1 firm. Whether the petitioners have received any amount from accused No.1 firm pertaining to the defective machinery which was sold to respondent No.2 or at the instance of petitioners, respondent No.2 sustained any monetary loss or whether there is any conspiracy between the petitioners and accused Nos.2 to 4, these aspects have to be revealed during the course of trial only. 14. In Vishnu Kumar Shukla supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since there was no suspicion, let alone strong or grave suspicion, against the appellants, subjecting them to a full-fledged trial would be unjustified. Referring to Priyanka Mishra v. State of M.P., the Court emphasized that individuals must be protected from vexatious and unwarranted prosecutions and from being dragged into unnecessary trials. Referring to Priyanka Mishra v. State of M.P., the Court emphasized that individuals must be protected from vexatious and unwarranted prosecutions and from being dragged into unnecessary trials. The High Courts have a duty to quash such proceedings or discharge the accused in deserving cases. As the High Court failed to do so, the Supreme Court intervened, reaffirming its role as the "sentinel on the qui vive”. 15. In Vipin Sahni supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Magistrate was fully justified in exercising power under Section 239 CrPC to discharge the appellants of offences under Sections 420 and 120B IPC, as there was no material to infer conspiracy or deceit. The Court observed that the mortgage had been disclosed at the outset and AICTE never claimed dishonest inducement, thereby negating the essential ingredients of cheating or conspiracy. The High Court’s contrary finding of suppression was based on a technical approach unsupported by facts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 20.01.2023 and restored the Magistrate’s discharge order. 16. In Debendra Nath Padhi supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the expression “record of the case” in Section 227 Cr.P.C. refers to the material and documents forwarded by the Magistrate under Section 209, and the accused has no right to produce defence material at the stage of framing of charge, such right being available only at trial. The Court explained that Section 227 was incorporated in the 1973 Code to prevent undue harassment of the accused by enabling discharge where the evidence collected falls short of the minimum legal requirements. Unlike the old Code of 1898, which provided for a lengthy committal inquiry under Sections 207 and 207-A, the present Code, based on the Law Commission’s recommendation, abolished that procedure to avoid delay. Now, the Court of Session alone frames charges under Section 228 if the accused is not discharged under Section 227 , and evidence is taken only after charges are framed. 17. In K. Narayana Rao supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying on Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, reiterated the scope of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. It held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence only to see if a prima facie case exists. 17. In K. Narayana Rao supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying on Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, reiterated the scope of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. It held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence only to see if a prima facie case exists. If the material raises grave suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, charges must be framed; if it raises only mere suspicion, discharge is warranted. The Magistrate is not a mere post office but must apply judicial mind to the broad probabilities, documents, and basic infirmities, without conducting a roving enquiry into merits as in a trial. The provision aims to prevent wastage of public time and harassment to the accused where the evidentiary material falls short of the legal threshold. 18. In Yogesh supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the scope of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The Court held that at the stage prior to framing of charge, the Judge is bound to examine whether there is “sufficient ground” to proceed against the accused, on the basis of the record and documents submitted. This necessarily involves application of judicial mind, with a limited power to sift and weigh the material to see if a prima facie case is made out. The test varies with the facts of each case, but broadly, if two views are possible and the evidence only raises mere suspicion, as opposed to grave suspicion, the accused must be discharged. At this stage, the Judge is not concerned with the ultimate result of the trial, but only with whether the materials, if unrebutted, make a conviction reasonably possible. 19. The above judgments which are relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners that they acted as conspirators and abettors of accused Nos.2 to 4 and they supplied defective machinery by receiving huge amounts from respondent No.2. 20. 20. It is pertinent to mention that the learned Magistrate after due verification of the record passed the impugned order dated 20.01.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.543 of 2015 holding that the petitioners were accused and abettors of the offences alleged accused Nos.1 to 4 and rightly dismissed the discharge application by giving cogent reasons, which was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Magistrate took cognizance, especially without assigning reasons in the absence of any prima facie case against the petitioners, is also not tenable under law. 21. The record further reveals that respondent No.2 filed suit in O.S.No.472 of 2016 for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,44,24,871/-, which is s subsequent to the filing of the private complaint in C.C.No.392 of 2015. The nature of the relief sought in the suit and the allegations made in the complaint are different and distinctive. It is trite law that mere pendency of civil proceedings does not preclude the party to initiate criminal proceedings under the penal provisions. 22. It is relevant to mention that in K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. , (2020) 14 SCC 552 the Hon’ble Apex Court has reaffirmed the well-settled principle that the same set of facts may give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, and that availing a civil remedy does not bar the initiation of criminal prosecution. The Court relied heavily on precedents like Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. and Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal, to reiterate that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil dispute is also pending between the parties. In Kamaladevi Agarwal, it was categorically held that the pendency of civil proceedings does not justify quashing criminal proceedings, especially where the allegations disclose a prima facie criminal offence. The Court observed that many acts of cheating occur in the context of commercial or financial transactions, and such a “civil profile” does not strip the act of its “criminal outfit.” The Court also referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that quashing of FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be limited to rare and exceptional cases. It emphasized that just because a transaction involves a commercial or monetary element that alone is not a ground to rule out criminal intent or proceedings. It emphasized that just because a transaction involves a commercial or monetary element that alone is not a ground to rule out criminal intent or proceedings. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the High Court had erred in quashing the criminal proceedings, stressing that criminal cases must proceed as per the Cr.P.C. and cannot be halted solely due to parallel civil litigation, regardless of the status or authority of the civil forum. 23. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or procedural impropriety warranting interference with the orders dated 30.11.2016 in Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2016 and 04.05.2015 in Crl.R.P.No.11 of 2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, confirming the order dated 20.01.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.543 of 2015 passed by the learned Magistrate or any ground to quash C.C.No.392 of 2015 to exercise the powers conferred under Sections 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the same is liable to be dismissed. 24. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, the presence of the petitioners/accused Nos.8, 11, 13 and 21 before the trial Court in C.C. No.392 of 2015 is dispensed with, unless their presence is specifically required during the course of trial subject to the condition that the petitioners shall represent the matter through their Counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non- appearance of the petitioners on specific date so fixed by the trial Court, the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 25. It is made clear that the trial Court is directed to decide C.C.No.392 of 2015 on merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order as well as in the impugned orders dated 30.11.2016 and 04.05.2016. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.