Prosecutor High Court · 2025

: I:' ;"fl ' l:J[,,ff :; :i ::t T ::iffi I=H G ro u nd s or c ri m i n a r ABUBAKAR ALHAMED, Advocate tor *re petiioner ano the pubric prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri Mohammed Ateeq pasha, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. ".,,ilJ The Court made the fo owing: ORDER _---a'\!ry ,_. t,I a THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETI TION No.207 OF 2023 o RDER: ThisCriminalPetitionisfiledbythepetitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No 13021 ot 2O2l pending on the file of the learned Chief lVletropolitan Magistrate at Nampally' Hyderabad (for short 'the learned trial Court') registered for the offences under Sections 406,42O,506 read with 120-B of the lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC').

02. Heard Sri Habeeb Abubakar Alhamed' learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No 2 and Smt S Madhavi' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.'1 . No representation on behalf of the respondent No 2' Perused the record

03. Brief facts of the case are that the accused No 1 and the petitioner-accused No 2 are husband and wife' the accused No.3 is the brother of the accused No 1' The respondent No.2 and accused No.1 well acquainted with each other. Out of the said acquaintance, the accused No 1 2 borrowed an amount of Rs.43,00,000/_ on 02.09.2020 and Rs.20,00,000/_ on 10.09.2021 , from the respondent No.2. The accused No.1 promised to repay the said amounts within short time. He also issued four cheques in favour of respondent No.2 vide Cheque Nos.000398, 000400, 000401, 000402, all dated OS.1O.2O2O for a sum of Rs43,00,000/- in total. Thereafter, the accused No.1 failed to repay the borrowed amounts and dodged the matter on one pretext or the other. ln the meanwhile, the respondent No.2 presented the said cheques for encashment and the same were returned unpaid with an endorsement ,insufficient funds, Hence, the Police have fired charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the above alleged offences.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner_accused No.2 submitted that the petitioner_accused No.2 is nothing to do with the alreged offences. The petitioner-accused No.2 is no way connected with the allegations levelled in charge sheet. As the petitioner-accused No.2 is the wife of the accused No.1, she was falsely implicated by the police, without her involvement in the crime. The petitioner_accused No.2 is a parda nasheen lady and she had no acquaintance with the I I 3 respondent No 2' There are no specific allegations against the petitioner-accused No 2 either in the complaint or in the charge sheet. She is unaware of the alleged transaction betweentheaccusedNo.landrespondentNo.2.ThePolice without any proper investigation filed the charge sheet' On the same set-of-facts, the respondent No 2 also filed a case against the accused No 1 vide C C NI'No 9770 of 2022 on the fileofthelearnedVMetropolitantVlagistrate,Hyderabadfor the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act, which is pending There is no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner-accused No 2 to cheat the complainant. All the allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused No 2 are false and baseless' The contents of the charge sheet do not disclose the requrred ingredients to attract the.offences under Sectlons 406' 42O' 506 read with 120-BoflPC.Hence,heprayedtoquashtheproceedings against the petitioner-accused No 2'

05. On the other hand' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No 1 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case -w \JAii'41 1U2-- \:r$ -- l\ 4 to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting full_ fledged trial by the learned trial Court and prayecl to dismiss this Criminal petition

06. Having regard to the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that the respondent No.2 and accused No.l are well acquainted with each other and there were financial transactions between them. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the wife of the accused No.1. lt is also apparent on the face of the record that the respondent No.2 initiated criminal proceedings against the accused No.1 vide C.C Nl.No.977O of 2022 on the file of the learned V l\4etropolitan tVlagistrate, Hyderabad for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act.

07. A careful perusal of the record discloses that the allegations are levelled against the accused No.1 only. There is no element of cheating or criminal breach of trust alleged against the petitioner_accused No.2 Further, there are no primafacie allegations of dishonest or fraudulent intention of cheating against the petitioner_accused No.2 in the charge sheet. lt appears that there is no role or involvement of the a' 5 petitioner-accused No'2 in the alleged crime' Even though if all the allegations made in the charge sheet are taken on their face value, the required material ingredients for constituting the offences under Section s 406 ' 42O of IPC are not made out against the petitioner-accused No 2'

08. Now coming to the other allegations for the offence under Section 506 of IPC are concerned' there are no specific allegations against the petitioner-accused No 2 as to in what manner she had threatened causing criminal To prove a criminal intimidation to the respondent No 2' lPC, the Prosecution conspiracY under Section 120-B of needs to demonstrate an agreement of criminal consplracy between the accused parties to commit an illegal aci Further' it is to be noted that except quoting Section 120-8 of IPC along with other penal provisions' there is no whisper in the charge sheet with regard to the allegation of criminal conspiracy between the accused Nos'1 to 3'

09. ln State of Haryana and others v' Ch'Bhaian Lat and othersl the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia held that: ' 1992 scc (suPP) 1 335 6 "ln the exercise of the Articte226",ii""ini"ii"f,r#;Zi!'i,7.i1!:[.f i;; of the Code of Criminal .procedure, ,;"";;;;;;;, categories of cases are given by way .i ,iri*il, wherein such power coutd be'*"*i".,a ,iiJ,"a prevent abuse of the o t h e ruv i s e t o s e c u re ; n; ; "::i :; ; " "" il",;; i i r:; pos:ibb.-to tay down ,, oir,ri, i,.ii,, ::,,^O^". oettned and sufticienily channelrsed ,ro inio"riit" guide myriad kinds of t :ases wherein such power shoutci be exercised; ri:" where the allegations made in the First {1), lnformation Repod or th are taken at their ,,". ,)",,ZIlJ,j!!.iliJ ,,:,,1:!_ entirety do not prima facie constitute';;;;;;;; or make out a case against the accused; *n"o the attegations in the First lnformation ? Repoft and other materials, if any, accomp,rri r;";;; F.l.R. do not disclose a co a n i n v e s t i s a t i o r o;- ; ;::' :i: :: :rt;n r,' ;':: i ;!, "; 156(1) of the Code excepl unclercn *0", o)i"'u within the purview of Section ,rr1i1 oi,ni \aOlstrate Code. (! where the uncontrovefted attegations made in ::. ::: or.,comptaint and the tn support of the same do not a;s"lo". -tfrl "ri-d"r." "";;;;r;:; com.mission of any offence and make ort , .r"" against the accused; (4) where the allegations in the FtR do not constitule a cognizable offence but constitute orty u-'nJi cognizable offence, no investigation is permitia Oi,' police officer without an order of " U"giri,t., ui - "" contemptated under Section 155(2) of the ioiul, @ *!?n the attegations made in the FtR or c.omplaint are so absurd and inheren y i*probuOi. J, the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach 'a rw,.-..*ry 7 a iust conclusion that there is sufficient ground for pro".uaing againsl the accused: t6l where there is an express legal bar engrafted in, #r*.ii',i"' ii*isions or'tte code or the concerned 7J, lr,rir, tr i"h a criminat proceeding is instituted) to ',iu',nrruur,on and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there s a specific provision '*: ?:!:" f,ir lhe concerned Act' provic)ing ef{icacious redress tor the grievance of the aggrieved pafty; Q)where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge " 10. ln the present case on hand' as observed supra' the entire charge sheet remained silent with regard to the role or involvement of the petitioner-accused No 2 in the alleged crime. Moreover, all the allegations are levelled against the accused No.1 only After filing of the present complaint' the respondent No.2 initiated criminal proceedings against the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act Even if the allegations are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not primafacie constitute any alleged offences against the petitioner-accused No.2 and the evidence collected in support of the allegations in the charge sheet do not disclose the commissionofanyoffenceandmakeoutacaseagainstthe , , B l petitioner-accused No.2. Therefore, the present case falls within the ambit of point Nos.1 and 3 of ch.Bhajanlalt case cited supra. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner_accused No.2 amounts to sheer abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed

11. Accordipgly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner_accused No 2 in C.C.No 13021 of 2021 pending on the fite of the learned Chief lVletropolitan lVlagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending mrscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed ,/TRUE COPY// Sd. S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT RTISTRAR ,{} - njL sEGrpN oFFlcER i,lr,[t**+:q"#l'fr Ffr'me"#*+'#,lmHi"t'ai#,. u [?1'3, "or'", sM/sh ( A- \ To, HIGH COURT DATED: 27tO6t2O2S ORDER CRLP;No.20T of 20123 ,.., riE .s '.4 SEP 2W (r a I :. 03 ,i9 ''r & \..* ^ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION (+- g 1) @ t\ i t I ; I I I I I t I I I I I i : I I I I