ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. Heard Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri A.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for 2 nd respondent. 2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, ‘the CrPC’) to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.45 of 2016 dated 27.04.2016 pending on the file of P.S. Kowtala, Kowtala Mandal, Adilabad District. Facts of the case:- 3. The petitioners herein are A.1, A.2 and A.4. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under Sections 406, 420, 447 and 504, 120-B and 294 (b) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). On the complaint dated 27.04.2016, lodged by 2 nd respondent, P.S. Kowtala have registered a case in Cr.No.45 of 2016 against the petitioners herein and A.3. 4. As per the complaint dated 27.04.2016 of 2 nd respondent, the allegations leveled against the petitioner and A.3 are as that it is in the business of construction of multi storeyed buildings, colonies, complexes and housing projects etc. On 05.08.2009, Sri Ramaiah, represented M/s. Sri Chennakesava Constructions (for short, ‘CK constructions’) approached 2 nd respondent, requested to execute the contract which was awarded to them by the 1 st petitioner. On 09.07.2008, there was a contract agreement entered between the 1 st petitioner and CK Constructions for carrying on works of Pranahitha Chevella Lift Irrigation Scheme (for short, ‘PCLIS’) and excavation of gravity canal including formation of embankments, construction of Sluices Cross Massonry and Cross Drainage works, lining etc. 1 st petitioner company was awarded with the contract for PCLIS – Package I – detailed investigation and preparation of Design and Drawings, Estimates, Land Plan Schedules and Excavation of gravity canal including formation of embankments, constructions of CM & CD works, lining etc. complete for the reach from KM 0.500 to KM 15.000 from Tummidi Hetti (v) to Karjavelli (v) which is taking off from the right flank of the proposed Barrage across River Pranahita near Tummidi Hetti (v) Kouthala (M) Adilabad District (Pkg. No. 1) for value of Rs. 229,14,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred and twenty nine crores and fourteen lakhs only). complete for the reach from KM 0.500 to KM 15.000 from Tummidi Hetti (v) to Karjavelli (v) which is taking off from the right flank of the proposed Barrage across River Pranahita near Tummidi Hetti (v) Kouthala (M) Adilabad District (Pkg. No. 1) for value of Rs. 229,14,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred and twenty nine crores and fourteen lakhs only). 1 st petitioner had agreed to give the above works of contracts to CK constructions on back to back basis with total responsibility for execution of the contract in toto. As CK constructions, could not carry on the works awarded to them, they represented by Sri. Ramaiah entered into a contract with 2 nd respondent. In pursuance to the agreement, 2 nd respondent has been carrying on the works since 2009. 1 st petitioner knows very well that 2 nd respondent is carrying on the works in the place of CK constructions. 1 st petitioner is well aware that 2 nd respondent has entered into an agreement with CK constructions. The personnel of 1 st petitioner were visiting the site and constantly supervising the works carried out by 2 nd respondent. 1 st petitioner was guiding 2 nd respondent in carrying on the works and further informing with regard to the payment schedule. Part of the payments were released in favour of 2 nd respondent. In fact, 2 nd respondent has to receive a sum of Rs.20 Crores, from 1 st petitioner and CK constructions. 2 nd respondent has executed the work and incurred total expenditure of Rs.90 Crores in executing the work. 1 st petitioner has received total amount but in collusion with CK constructions, are not paying the amounts to 2 nd respondent. They have entered into conspiracy, evading the payments of the 2 nd respondent even after repeated requests to CK constructions to pay the amount but it was later discovered that CK constructions did not receive the payments. 2 nd respondent enquired with 1 st petitioner who stated that they have already paid the amounts to CK constructions. 2 nd respondent apprehend that both 1 st petitioner and CK constructions have entered into a criminal conspiracy in evading payments for the works done by 2 nd respondent. 5. The Managing Partner of CK constructions expired on 13.04.2016. 2 nd respondent enquired with 1 st petitioner who stated that they have already paid the amounts to CK constructions. 2 nd respondent apprehend that both 1 st petitioner and CK constructions have entered into a criminal conspiracy in evading payments for the works done by 2 nd respondent. 5. The Managing Partner of CK constructions expired on 13.04.2016. On 17.04.2016, 1 st petitioner forcibly trespassed into the site, deployed an excavator and started damaging the work which was already executed by 2 nd respondent. When 2 nd respondent objected for the same, the staff of 1 st petitioner including petitioner No.3 abused them. 1 st petitioner, in collusion with CK constructions, tried to dispossess the 2 nd respondent from the site. 2 nd respondent has invested huge amounts, men and machinery for the site, still there is much work pending, the same has to be executed by 2 nd respondent in terms of the agreement entered between 2 nd respondent and CK constructions within the agreed timelines. There is dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners and other accused right from the inception. 6. It is further alleged that knowing pretty well that the Managing Partner of CK constructions had expired, 1 st petitioner has resorted to illegal tactics with 2 nd respondent to carry on the work with an evil intention to evade the payments of Rs.20 Crores. The accused has a modus operandi of making to execute the work with the expenditure incurred by it and in not paying the entire amounts to them. Further, the 1 st petitioner did not allow the 2 nd respondent to carry on the works. 7. The said acts of the accused in not paying the amounts after receiving the same from the Government would amount to embezzlement of funds, and further not allowing them to carry on the works would amount to cheating. When 2 nd respondent was executing the work, 3 rd petitioner – site Engineer of 1 st petitioner and his staff trespassed into the site, when 2 nd respondent objected, they stated that they are doing the same, on the instructions of their Chairman i.e. 2 nd petitioner. They have abused staff of 2 nd respondent. When 2 nd respondent was executing the work, 3 rd petitioner – site Engineer of 1 st petitioner and his staff trespassed into the site, when 2 nd respondent objected, they stated that they are doing the same, on the instructions of their Chairman i.e. 2 nd petitioner. They have abused staff of 2 nd respondent. Thus, the petitioners along with the other accused trespassed into the site with mala fide intention and caused injury to the staff and cause damage to the machinery belongs to the 2 nd respondent. 8. In furtherance of the above allegations, 2 nd respondent has lodged the said complaint with the Police, Kowtala who, in turn, registered the aforesaid crime against the petitioners herein and A.3. 9. Challenging the proceedings in the said crime, petitioners filed the present criminal petition. 10. 2 nd respondent filed counter contending as follows:- i. The petitioners filed the present petition by way of suppression of facts. ii. The contents of the complaint constitute the aforesaid offences. iii. The petitioners are aware of the contract entered by and between 2 nd respondent and CK constructions and execution of work by the 2 nd respondent, in terms of the said contract. iv. 2 nd respondent has furnished bank guarantees in terms of the agreement between the 2 nd respondent and CK constructions. 1 st petitioner has made correspondence with regard to the same. v. There are several factual aspects which the Investigating Officer has to consider during the course of investigation. vi. Scuttling investigation at the threshold is impermissible. 11. Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners contend as follows:- i. The contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of the offences. ii. 1 st petitioner is not aware of the agreement between the 2 nd respondent and CK constructions. iii. There is no privity of contract between 1 st petitioner and 2 nd respondent. As per the principal agreement, 1 st petitioner has executed an agreement with CK constructions. There is no provision in the said agreement to enter sub contract by CK constructions in favour of 2 nd respondent with regard to the subject work. iv. The disputes between the petitioners and 2 nd respondent are civil in nature. v. 2 nd respondent has lodged the said complaint only for wrongful gain. vi. There is no provision in the said agreement to enter sub contract by CK constructions in favour of 2 nd respondent with regard to the subject work. iv. The disputes between the petitioners and 2 nd respondent are civil in nature. v. 2 nd respondent has lodged the said complaint only for wrongful gain. vi. On consideration of the said aspects only, this Court granted stay of investigation including arrest of the petitioners for a period of four (4) weeks vide order dated 28.02.20218 and same was extended thereafter. vii. Thus, continuation of the proceedings in the subject crime against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law. viii. 2 nd petitioner is chairman and 3 rd petitioner is site Engineer of 1 st petitioner company. They are not vicariously liable. ix. He has placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. CBI, AIR 2015 SC 923 . 12. Whereas, Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri A.Vijay Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel appearing for 2 nd respondent, would contend that the proceedings are at crime stage. The Investigating Officer still has to consider several aspects in the course of investigation. 13. Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel contend that the Investigating Officer has already completed investigation. Since there is change of Investigating Officer, the charge sheet is not filed. The present Investigating Officer will file charge sheet shortly. The contentions raised by the petitioners herein are triable aspects and the petitioners have to take the said defence before the trial Court and it is for the trial Court to consider the same. 14. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel would contend that there is suppression of facts by the petitioners. Petitioners were aware that 2 nd respondent and CK constructions have entered into an agreement to execute the subject work, 2 nd respondent has furnished bank guarantees to the Government on behalf of the petitioner No.1, staff of petitioner No.1 company used to visit site, advise 2 nd respondent in execution of work etc. Even then, in the present petition, petitioners contended that they are not aware of the agreement between CK constructions and 2 nd respondent. Even then, in the present petition, petitioners contended that they are not aware of the agreement between CK constructions and 2 nd respondent. Thus, there is suppression of facts by the petitioner and that they have not approached this Court with clean hands and they have obtained interim order by way of suppression of facts. Therefore, the present Criminal Petition shall be liable to be dismissed only on the said ground. The contents of the complaint constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. 15. Scuttling the investigation at the threshold is impermissible. He has placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Tulsi Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , [(1962) SCC Online SC 99] , Union of India vs. B.R.Bajaj , [ (1994) 2 SCC 277 ] , M.Krishnan vs. Vijay Singh , [ (2001) 8 SCC 645 ] , State of Orissa vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo , [ (2005) 13 SCC 540 ] , Sanappa Reddy Maheedhar vs. State of AP , [ (2007) 13 SCC 165 ] Padal Venkata Rama Reddy vs. Kovvur Satyanarayana Reddy , [ (2011) 12 SCC 437 ] Mosiruddin Munshi vs. Mohd. Siraj , [(2014) 14 SCC 22] , K.Jagadish vs. Udaya Kumar G.S. , [ (2020) 14 SCC 552 ] and Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra , [ (2021) 19 SCC 401 ] 16. With the aforesaid submissions, both of them sought to dismiss the present criminal petition. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:- 17. The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that 1 st petitioner has entered into an agreement with the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh through Irrigation and Command Area Development has issued tender notification dated 03.09.2007 for the works of ‘PCILS’ – Package I – detailed investigation and preparation of Design and Drawings, Estimates, Land Plan Schedules and Excavation of gravity canal including formation of embankments, constructions of CM & CD works, lining etc. complete for the reach from KM 0.500 to KM 15.000 from Tummidi Hetti (v) to Karjavelli (v) which is taking off from the right flank of the proposed Barrage across River Pranahita near Tummidi Hetti (v) Kouthala (M) Adilabad District (Pkg. No. 1) for value of Rs. 229,14,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred and twenty nine crores and fourteen lakhs only). 1 st petitioner company participated in the said tenders and stood as successful bidder. No. 1) for value of Rs. 229,14,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred and twenty nine crores and fourteen lakhs only). 1 st petitioner company participated in the said tenders and stood as successful bidder. It has entered into an agreement dated 06.06.2008 with CK constructions. The value of the contract is Rs.229.14 Crores. 18. It is also not in dispute that the 1 st petitioner has entered into sub contract with CK Constructions/A.3 dated 09.06.2008 on the specific terms and conditions mentioned therein. 19. According to the 2 nd respondent, it has entered into sub contract agreement with CK constructions (back to back basis) dated 05.08.2009 on the specific terms and conditions mentioned therein.1 st petitioner is aware of the same. It has executed works in terms of the sub contract to the tune of Rs.90 Crores. Staff of the 1 st petitioner used to advise the 2 nd respondent by visiting the site regularly. 2 nd respondent has also provided 9 bank guarantees in favour of Superintending Engineer, I & CADD, medium Irrigation Projects Circle, Bellampally, Adilabad District, all dated 24.02.2010. UCO bank has also issued letter 08.08.2013 for retention of money under the said bank guarantees. 1 st petitioner has addressed a letter dated 22.02.2010 requesting the petitioners to procure adequate bank guarantees. Therefore, now the 1 st petitioner cannot plead ignorance with regard to agreement entered by 2 nd respondent with CK Constructions and execution of work by 2 nd respondent pursuant to the said agreement, it amounts to suppression of facts. 20. It is relevant to note that in paragraph No.14 of the present criminal petition, the petitioners have contended that the 1 st petitioner did not have any information or idea about the impugned contract agreement entered into between the 2 nd respondent and CK constructions. Even if it is to be assumed, but not admitted that the averment made by the 2 nd respondent that CK constructions took permission from the 1 st petitioner, as the sub letting shall not create contract between the 1 st petitioner and CK Constructions. 21. In ground No.XI, the petitioners further contended that the petitioner’s company has no knowledge about the alleged sub-contract entered into between CK Constructions and 2 nd respondent. There is no privity of contract between the 1 st petitioner and 2 nd respondent. 22. 21. In ground No.XI, the petitioners further contended that the petitioner’s company has no knowledge about the alleged sub-contract entered into between CK Constructions and 2 nd respondent. There is no privity of contract between the 1 st petitioner and 2 nd respondent. 22. In the light of the aforesaid contentions, it is relevant to note that the 1 st petitioner company has addressed a letter dated 22.02.2010 requesting the 2 nd respondent to obtain drawings and designs at the earliest. In the said letter, 1 st petitioner has referred to the agreement dated 06.06.2008 entered by and between the 1 st petitioner and Government, sub contract agreement dated 09.06.2008 by and between 1 st petitioner and CK constructions. 1 st petitioner has categorically stated that it was understood that the above work is being handled by 2 nd respondent on back to back basis from CK constructions. 1 st petitioner has also requested the 2 nd respondent to procure adequate men, material and machinery for early completion of the said work. It has further requested the 2 nd respondent to procure adequate bank guarantees in the name of the client and give so that they submit the same to the client to draw mobilization advance and the same will be transferred to 2 nd respondent through CK Constructions to improve the progress at site. 23. In the said letter, it is further stated that as seen at site good efforts are being put up by 2 nd respondent and 1 st petitioner are satisfied. It will also support in the event of any necessity in all aspects. 24. It is also apt to note that 2 nd respondent has furnished bank guarantees Nos. 2110IGFIN000310, 2110IGFIN000610, 2110IGFIN000210, 2110IGFIN000510, 2110IGFIN000110, 2110IGFIN000710, 2110IGFIN000810, 2110IGFIN000410, 2110IGFIN000910, 2142IGFIN003913 ( for retention of money), all dated 24.02.2010 in favour of Superintendent Engineer, Medium Irrigation Projects Circle, Bellampally, Adilabad District, for an amount of Rs.1 Crore each. The same was obtained from UCO bank, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. 2 nd respondent has also filed letter issued by UCO bank i.e. bank guarantees for registration money dated 08.08.2013. 2 nd respondent has also filed copies of bills reflecting back to back payments. Perusal of the same would reveal that the same are in respect of the sub contract. 25. The same was obtained from UCO bank, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. 2 nd respondent has also filed letter issued by UCO bank i.e. bank guarantees for registration money dated 08.08.2013. 2 nd respondent has also filed copies of bills reflecting back to back payments. Perusal of the same would reveal that the same are in respect of the sub contract. 25. As discussed supra, the aforesaid contract is for the purpose of for preparation of designs, drawings estimates, land plan schedules and excavation of gravity canal including FE, construction of sluices, cross masonry and cross drainage works lining etc. complete for the reach from formation of embankments, constructions of CM & CD works, lining etc. complete for the reach from KM 0.500 to KM 15.000 from Tummidi Hetti (v) to Karjavelli (v) which is taking off from the right flank of the proposed Barrage across River Pranahita near Tummidi Hetti (v) Kouthala (M) Adilabad District (Pkg. No. 1) for value of Rs. 229,14,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred and twenty nine crores and fourteen lakhs only). 26. According to the 2 nd respondent, it has commenced execution of the work at the site since 2009. Therefore, the petitioners cannot contend that they are not aware of the same. The aforesaid contentions of the petitioners that they are not aware of the sub contract entered between the 2 nd respondent and CK Constructions is contrary to record and untenable. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners filed the present Criminal Petition by way of suppression of the aforesaid fact. Only on the said ground, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 27. In M/S S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar , [ AIR 2004 SC 2421 ] , the Apex Court held that as a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. Similar view has been taken in G.M. Haryana Roadways vs Jai Bhagwan , [ (2008) 4 SCC 127 ] Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India , [ (2007) 8 SCC 449 ] . This rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. Similar view has been taken in G.M. Haryana Roadways vs Jai Bhagwan , [ (2008) 4 SCC 127 ] Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India , [ (2007) 8 SCC 449 ] . Placing reliance on the said judgments, the Apex Court in the Auroville Foundation vs Natasha Storey , [Civil Appeal No.13651 of 17.03.2025] , in paragraph No.9 held as follows:- 9. It is no more res integra that the Doctrine of “Clean hands and non-suppression of material facts” is applicable with full force to every proceedings before any judicial forum. The party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and disclose all correct and material facts in his Writ Petition. If it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petition has been guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts or has not come with clean hands, such conduct must be seriously viewed by the courts as the abuse of process of law and the petition must be dismissed on that ground alone without entering into the merits of the matter. 28. As discussed supra, in the present case, there is misrepresentation and suppression of facts by the petitioners that they are not aware of the agreement entered by and between 2 nd respondent and CK Constructions, despite letter dated 24.02.2010 and bank guarantees furnished by 2 nd respondent. 29. As discussed supra, on the complaint dated 22.04.2016, the Police Kowtala, has registered the aforesaid crime against the petitioners herein and A.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 447 and 504, 120-B and 294 (b) read with 3 of IPC. The said sections are extracted below :- 405. 29. As discussed supra, on the complaint dated 22.04.2016, the Police Kowtala, has registered the aforesaid crime against the petitioners herein and A.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 447 and 504, 120-B and 294 (b) read with 3 of IPC. The said sections are extracted below :- 405. Criminal breach of trust.— Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”. 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.— Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 415. Cheating.— Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat” 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 447. Punishment for criminal trespass.— Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. 506. 447. Punishment for criminal trespass.— Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.— Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; 294 (b) of IPC: Anyone who sings, recites, or utters any obscene song, ballad, or words in or near any public place with imprisonment up to three months, a fine, or both. 30. In Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy vs. Sudha Seetharam , [2019 6 SCC 739] , Dr. Lakshman vs. State of Karnataka , [ 2019 9 SCC 677 ] , the Apex Court held that delivery of any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows: i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him; ii) (a) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (b) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and iii) in cases covered by (ii) (b) above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating. 31. In Tulsiram (supra), the Apex Court held that proving of one element is sufficient to attract the said offences. 32. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating. 31. In Tulsiram (supra), the Apex Court held that proving of one element is sufficient to attract the said offences. 32. As discussed supra, in the complaint, 2 nd respondent specifically alleged that the petitioners in collusion with CK constructions induced the 2 nd respondent. 33. With regard to the offence under Section 447 of IPC, it is the specific contention of the 2 nd respondent that in pursuance of the sub contract dated 05.08.2009, CK constructions entrusted execution of aforesaid work in favour of 2 nd respondent and therefore, 2 nd respondent has been executed the said works in terms of the said sub contract agreement on the site. 1 st petitioner is aware of the same. Even then, they have trespassed into the said site. 34. With regard to the offence under Section 506 and 294(b) IPC, it is relevant to note that in the complaint dated 27.04.2016, there is specific allegation against petitioners 2 and 3 that 3 rd petitioner is the site Engineers who tried to dispossess the staff of the 2 nd respondent with ulterior motive and also abused them with ulterior motive and he also abused the staff of the 2 nd respondent on 17.04.2016. Staff of the 1 st petitioner trespassed into the site, they deployed an excavator, started damaging the works executed by 2 nd respondent. Thus, there are specific allegations against the 3 rd petitioner. 35. It is also specifically alleged by 2 nd respondent that 2 nd petitioner is the Chairman of the 1 st petitioner company and 3 rd petitioner and other staff of the 1 st petitioner resorted to the aforesaid illegal acts on the instructions and at the instance of the 2 nd petitioner. Thus, the same amounts to criminal intimidation and criminal trespass. 36. As discussed supra, there are several factual aspects which the Investigating Officer has to consider during the course of investigation. The petitioners, have filed principal agreement dated 06.06.2008 entered between the 1 st petitioner and erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Irrigation and CAD. Even according to the petitioners, 1 st petitioner has entered into an agreement with the CK constructions, on 09.06.2008. The petitioners, have filed principal agreement dated 06.06.2008 entered between the 1 st petitioner and erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Irrigation and CAD. Even according to the petitioners, 1 st petitioner has entered into an agreement with the CK constructions, on 09.06.2008. As per the said agreement, whether CK constructions can enter into sub contract with the 2 nd respondent dated 05.08.2009 is a factual aspect which the Investigating Officer has to consider. 37. As discussed supra, admittedly, 2 nd respondent has furnished the aforesaid bank guarantees and it has been executing the said works. The letter dated 22.02.2010 addressed by 1 st petitioner in favour of 2 nd respondent would reveal the said fact. Vide the aforesaid letter, 1 st petitioner requested the 2 nd respondent to procure men and machinery, bank guarantees for execution of the said work. In fact, 1 st petitioner expressed its readiness to do needful in execution of the said project to the 2 nd respondent. Therefore, now the petitioners cannot contend that they are not aware of the said work executed by 2 nd respondent. Thus, there are several factual aspects which the Investigating Officer has to consider during the course of investigation. Scuttling the investigation at the threshold is impermissible as held by the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra). 38. In this regard, the following paragraphs of Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand , (2024) 10 SCC 527 ] are relevant: 15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the complaint, including the materials collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out . The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage. 16. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingredients. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage. 16. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingredients. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact which may be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused. As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the accused, despite taking possession of the truck on hire, has failed to pay hire charges for months together, while making false promises for its payment, a prima facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is made out which may require investigation. In such circumstances, if the FIR is quashed at the very inception, it would be nothing short of an act which thwarts a legitimate investigation. 17. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not. At this stage, the court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed. 18. It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigation are before the court, the court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR. 19. No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR does not become infructuous on submission of a police report under Section 173(2)CrPC, but when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investigation, the court must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report before taking a call whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed or not. More so, when the FIR alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest conduct of the accused. 39. More so, when the FIR alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest conduct of the accused. 39. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri A. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for 2 nd respondent, placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the following judgments and the same are discussed as follows:- i) In Neeharika (supra), the Apex Court held that courts should not interfere with FIRs or investigations under Section 482 CrPC unless the case falls under the Bhajan Lal principles . Interim orders like "no coercive steps" should not be routine and must be justified with reasons. The Court emphasized the investigating agency’s statutory right to probe cognizable offences. This case strongly discourages pre-trial interference . It supports continuation of proceedings where a prima facie case exists. ii) In K. Jagadish (supra), The Apex Court reiterated that even if a registered document exists and civil remedies are available, criminal proceedings can proceed when coercion or fraud is alleged. It upheld that civil and criminal liabilities can coexist on the same set of facts. The complainant’s version, including coercion and post- dated cheques, created a case for trial. Thus, quashing FIRs solely because a civil suit is pending, is impermissible. This judgment supports non-quashing in commercial fraud cases. iii) In Mosiruddin Munshi (supra), the Apex Court upheld criminal proceedings where the complainant was duped into paying money under false promises of property transfer. It ruled that when a transaction involves deliberate misrepresentation and fraud, criminal law is attracted. Even if a civil suit for specific performance is possible, that doesn’t negate criminal intent. Hence, the case supports FIR continuation in contract-based fraud scenarios. It aligns with the present matter involving alleged conspiracy and dishonesty. iv) In Sanapareddy Maheedhar (supra), the Apex Court ruled that a Magistrate can direct further investigation even if police submit a closure report, especially where procedural irregularities exist. It reinforced the principle that judicial scrutiny is necessary if the investigation appears influenced or insufficient. The decision emphasized that factual disputes and allegations must be properly probed. This case supports a deeper investigation in complex or sensitive matters. It is relevant to the instant case where the charge sheet is pending due to officer change. It reinforced the principle that judicial scrutiny is necessary if the investigation appears influenced or insufficient. The decision emphasized that factual disputes and allegations must be properly probed. This case supports a deeper investigation in complex or sensitive matters. It is relevant to the instant case where the charge sheet is pending due to officer change. v) In Saroj Kumar Sahoo (supra) The Court held that at the FIR stage, courts should not evaluate evidence in detail but only examine whether allegations disclose a cognizable offence . It cautioned against prematurely quashing criminal proceedings Where the complaint reflects elements of deception, courts must allow full investigation. This reinforces that threshold scrutiny under Section 482 should not stifle prosecution. It supports the contentions in the present case that factual matters must be tested during trial. vi) In M. Krishnan (supra), criminal proceedings were wrongly quashed by the High Court due to the existence of a civil dispute. The Supreme Court clarified that serious allegations like forgery and breach of trust invoke criminal liability irrespective of civil remedies. The decision upholds the complainant’s right to pursue both forums. It stresses that premature interference hampers justice. It is relevant to the cases where the complaint includes cheating and conspiracy as in the present case. vii) In B.R. Bajaj (supra), the case dealt with public servants and allegations of misuse of position in the context of lotteries. The Court held that procedural safeguards and proper investigation are crucial before quashing FIRs . Although it emphasized judicial restraint, its primary focus was on public trust and administrative conduct. Hence, its relevance to private contractual disputes is marginal . It offers general guidance on Section 482 but is less applicable to the facts at hand. viii). In Tulsi Ram (supra) , it is the landmark ruling which clarified that for the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, it’s sufficient to prove wrongful gain or loss, not both. It emphasized that dishonest intention at the time of the act is key. This interpretation helps sustain charges in complex fraud or conspiracy cases. It directly supports framing of charges in the current matter where loss to the respondent and gain to the accused are alleged. Thus, the case backs the complainant’s allegations. 40. It is the specific contention of Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor that the Investigating Officer has already completed investigation. It directly supports framing of charges in the current matter where loss to the respondent and gain to the accused are alleged. Thus, the case backs the complainant’s allegations. 40. It is the specific contention of Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor that the Investigating Officer has already completed investigation. In view of change of the Investigating Officer, the present investigating Officer could not file the charge sheet. He will file the charge sheet shortly. 41. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that prima facie, contents of the complaint dated 27.04.2016 constitute the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and other accused. However, on consideration of the statements of the witnesses on completion of investigation, it is for the Investigating Officer either to delete or add any provisions of law and also drop charge sheet against any of the accused. Therefore, scuttling the investigation at the threshold is impermissible. 42. Therefore, the present criminal petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.