The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 AND 1 r he state "l High Court for State t r"1?ts,jlt$:Hs :Xj:.,f H?'J""iJSff cutor' H ig h cou rt Bu i rd i ns' ...Respondent No' 1/State

2. Sri ShankarLal S/o Lakha Ram'Ag9^llJears' R/o H No 15-4-170 ' 6;r;;;h;;i Afzalsunj HYderabad-Soool2 ..'Respondent No' 2/Defacto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS pt'yi'nl that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand'#"t tro'"Ot of Crimin'al Fetition' the High Court may be oleased to call for'n" r.t""o''it iJ't'ng to tne lmpugned proceedings in the FIR F'' Afzalguni and declare the same as tto ssa of 2024 onrlo 'iitiiii;:-;i in li;ini' and in to as against the itleqal and unlawful' '"0''oi"'"n'in""'t"u p"tition"r.lr""used No' 1 to 2' r.A. NO: oF 2025 2 Petitio stated in the be Pleased nunderSectlon52SofBNSSpraying!!.?tin.,tl",circumstances Memorandum of Grounds of-C'iilinlf Fetition' the High Court may to sray ail further i"""ig'rii"; lncluding appearance of the i

petitioners/accused No 1 to 2 in FIR No.553 of 2024, dated 23t1212024, at p.s. Afzalgunj pending disposal of the above criminal petition, This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri G-s.Jagannath. Advocate for the petitioners and the Ms. s. Madhavi Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER I ; THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUXANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.896 OF 2025 ORDER: This Crimina,l Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSSJ by petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 to quash the proceedings against them in FIR No.553 of 2024 at P.S. Afzalgunj, Hyderabad. The offences a-lleged against petitioners are under Sections 316(2l., 318(4), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short tsNS).

2. Heard Mr. G.S.Jagannth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the material on record. No representation for respondent No.2.

3. On O3.O2.2O25 this Court permitted the counsel to take out personal notice on respondent No.2, vide Memo dated 14.02.2025, petitioner placed on record the track consignment details bearing consignment No.RN153518608lN, it is reflected in the track 2 JAK, J cRt.P-896 2025 consignment report on ll 'O2 '2025 that item is delivered to sender and postman remarks it as no such person in the address on the postal cover sent by the counsel for petitioner.

4. Respondent No'2 filed a complarnt d'ated 23J22024 to the Station House Officer' P'S' Afzalgunj at20'3O hours' In the complaint' it is stated that respondent is in the wholesale business of clothes and the name of business house is Raj dhani Trading at Pathargatti' Charminar' lt is further stated that two persons who are employed by name Manoj Das, S/o Hari Das R/o Rautha' Rajasthan and another by name LaI Puri' R/o Rauta' Rajasthan were working with him' lt is also stated that ot 24'lO'2O24 at O4.OO P.M', respondent No'2 sent both the persons to his house to bring Rs'13'OO'OOO/- for making payment to Mumbai dealer' It is further stated in the complaint that both the persons got away with the cash and not replied properly to his calls and after some time started avoiding calls.Itispointedoutinthecomplaintthatboththe also threatened that theY threatened him and persons J JAK, J CRLP 896 2025 would commit suicide. It is lastly stated that when he lastly called them, they said that they were in Mumbai and they abandon his bike at Gowliguda. Hence, the complaint

5. FIR came to be registered on 23.12.2024 showing that both the persons are suspects/accused under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 35r(2l r / w 3(5) of BNS.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that one Rukhamani is legally wedded wife of accused No.1 and that Rajdhani Trading Company is registered with Registration bearing No.36DVUPR5765R1ZO. It is further submitted that respondent No.2/complainant is due an amount of Rs.95,OO,OOO/- to petitioners and that they asking to return the amount, respondent No.2 has come up with this complaint. It is also submitted that the complaint lodged is a frivolous, a vexatious and a false complaint. It is submitted that even if the contents of the 7 . complaint are taken as stated, the act of receiving 13,OO,OOO/- from the residence of complainant is on

24.10.2024. It is pointed out t-hat the complaint is lodged ta" 4 JAK, J CRLP 896 2025 after a period of two months i.e., on 23.12.2024. It is also pointed out that the delay in lodging the complaint is not explained. It is urged that the very fact of delay in lodging the complaint is indicative that the complainant lodged a frivolous and vexatious complaint only with a view to harass petitioners and not to return the amount of Rs.95,0O,OO0/- due to petitioners.

8. lrarned counsel invited t]-e attention of this Court to complaint at Page No. 13, registration certificate at Page Nos. 14, 15, 16, Aadhar Card at Page No. 17 and Pan Card at Page No. 18. It is further submitted that on 25.10.2024, the complainant along with accused No.2 travelled from Hyderabad to Mumbai along with two others on business purpose (at Page No.2O). Page No. 19 is a document which shows that on 24.10.2024, accused No. I left to Mumbai on business purpose. To substantiate the pleas made across the Bar, learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to Page Nos.23 to 27 which are customer bills for various periods and also muster roll of his organization i.e., Rajadhaai Trading Company. 5 JAK, J CRLP 896 2025

9. Learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to Page No.32 wherein a letter is addressed to Station House Officer for a notice received under Section SS1al of BNSS in Crime No.553 of 2024. Crime No.553 of 2024 is the FIR registered at Afzalgunj police Station showing that petitioners as accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of a complaint by respondent No.2.

10. It is lastly urged that the complaint is lodged a_fter two months and that petitioner is running a business in the narne of Rajadhani Trading Company and the complainant to over'come the hurdle of paying Rs.95,00,000/- due to petitioners filed a false complaint after a period of two months of the date of occurrence of the event, the complaint is dated 23.12.2024. Hence, the criminal petition be quashed. il. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Notice sent to respondent No.2 is returned ,as no such person in the address'. 6 JAK, J cRt.P 896 2025

12. t earned Assistant Public Prosecutor stated that the complaint lodged in the Police Station is under various Sections such as criminal breach of trust, cheating, Criminal intimidation rlw common intention that investigation is going on and 35(3) of BNSS notice has been issued, petitioners have filed their replies and the Investigating Officer would take appropriate action on the basis of reply. It is submitted that investigation is still going on and no interference is necessitated.

13. Heard learned counsels and perused the record

14. On perusal of the complaint dated 23.72.2024, it is observed that the incident occurred on 24.10.2024. The complainant in his complaint specifically stated that he deputed his employees i.e., petitioners to collect the amount of Rs. 13,OO,OOO/- from his residence for handing over the said money to Mumbai dealer. Respondent No.2 stated that petitioners never returned to the shop and went absconding. It is further stated that when petitioners contacted him on phone, they gave evasive replies and threatened him. Details of date or time are not mentioned, 7 JAK, J CRLP 896 2025 I who and why complainant was threatened is not mentioned. It is also stated that petitioners have not returned the said amounts.

15. It defies the logic of this Court as to why the complainant kept quiet for such a long period of two months when he was cheated and threatened and complained about the incident that occurred on 24.10.2024. The fact that complaint is lodged after two months is indicative of fraudulent intention of complainant. Complaint is not lodged immediately and lacks the character of being a bonalide complaint. Details in the complaint are sketchy and they do not speak of any overt acts.

16. On a perusal of the documents annexed to the criminal petition, the compliant, the flight tickets, etc. It can be inferred that the complainant was in touch with accused, was aware that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were travelling and he intended to travel along with one of them, with accused No.2 on 25.IO.2O24, by flight to Mumbai. \, l l I I 8 JAK, J CRLP 896 2025 L7 . Be that as it may, fact that complaint is lodged after a period of two months is indicative enough of it being frivolous in natur:e. The complainant was in touch with petitioners and was having deliberations' the same can be inferred from the complaint' Complaint is lodged after a period of two months without any explanation for delay'

18. In spite of notice to respondent No'2' he has not entered his presence through counsel' The following Sections have been set up against the petitioners/ accused' Section 316(2) of BNS held as follows: "Whoever, commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either des.ription for a term whicli may extend to hve Years, or wit1l fine, or with both" Section 318(a) of BNS held as follows: "Whoever, by deceiving any Person' fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver arry property to any person' or to consent that any person shall retain any property' o. i.rt"ntio.r.tly induces the person so deceived to do to do anything which he would not do or ;;;;tt omit if he were not so ... Section 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS held as follows: 'Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of a.""aption foi a term which ma1' extend to ,,iirr". lwo years, or with llne, urrvith both " - 9 JAK, J CRLP 896 2025

19. For any of offences to get attracted, on the basis of complaint/FIR lodged, the ingredients of the Sections have to be fulfilled.

20. For bringing out an offence under the ambit of Section 318(4) of BNS, the FIR must disclose the following ingredients:

1. There should be an inducement of any one since inception,

2. The said inducement must be fraudulent or dishonest ald

3. That mens rea existed at the time of such inducement

21. For bringing out an offence under the ambit of Section 316(2) of BNS, the FIR must disclose that there must be a situation in which a person keeps and uses someone else's propert5r (in this case amounts) as if it were their own and does so dishonesfly.

22. For bringing out the case under criminal breach of trust, it will have to be pointed out that a person with whom entrustment of property is made has dishonestly l0 JAK, J CRLP 896 2025 misappropriated it or converted into his own use or dishonestly r.rsed it or disposed of.

23. In the present case, the allegation of entrustment of property is not forthcoming, after asking to collect amounts from the residence and before lodging the complaint, the complainanl was in touch with petitioners/accused, intended to travel with them, FIR is lodged alter 2 months of the date of incident. The ingredients of Section of criminal breach of trust i.e., 316(2) of BNS are not attracted.

24. For ma-king out an offence under the ambit of Section 351(2) r/u. Section 3(5) of BNS, the FIR must disclose the date alrd time of criminal intimidation and the offence must be related to the incident. Incident occurred 2 months ago, nottring IS forthcoming about the date of crimina-l intimidation, except a bald allegation

25. On a perusal of the complaint, FIR, there is nothing to show that petitioners/accused have dishonestly induced respondent No.2 to deliver axy amounts and that mens rea I l I I { JAK. J CRLP 896 2025 existed at the time of such inducement. No details of the date on which he was threatened are mentioned. The complaint is lodged a-fter a long delay of two months, delay is unexplained.

26. A complaint has to be lodged within a reasonable time. This Court does not hnd any merit in the complaint/FlR lodged and the proceedings pursuant to such a delayed complaint/FlR lodged there being no ingredients being made out. The proceedings are an abuse of process of law.

27. The inherent power of High Court under Section 528 of BNSS (old Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) is of very vide ambit. It has to be exercised to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of law. The High Court has power to quash the FIR if it thinks fit that FIR lodged is false and registered with an ulterior motive of troubling the aggrieved person. In such cases, the aggrieved person has the right to approach the Court and seek the quashing of FIR by demonstrating the same. This Court is of the opinion that petitioner has made out a case for .'quishing of FIR and I u t7 JAK, J CRLP E96 2025 continuation of proceedings on the basis of the complaint/FIR lodged after a period of two months without any explanation for the delay, with sketchy details, ingredients of Section not being made out in the complaint, amounts to abuse of process of law. Apparently it's a frivolous complaint and is a fit case to quash FIR No.553 of 2024, dated 23.12.2024 and FIR No.553 of 2024 dated

23.12.2024 on the file of P.S. Afzulgunj is hereby quashed.

28. With rhe above observations, this Criminal Petition is allowed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sha1l stand closed I \ To, sD/- A.v.s. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I, 'i\lt ,\\ \ \\ i\- L t\l , J vsecrPNoFFlcER i //TRUE COPY//

1. The ll Additional Chief Judicial Magistlate att{yderabd' 2. The Station House Onicei nl'igGi poli"" Stition' Hyderabad District' 3. Two CCs tc Public protu"'ttr.' Hi6h Court for the State of Telangana a oil" cC to Sri G.S.Jagannath' Advocate [oPUc] 5. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad. (OUT) - DUPSLw HIGH COURT DATED:1910212025 ORDER CRLP.No.896 ol 2O2! v STATE Q1. : a ,) {i I tu(' t'l \\[$' l I t)Et) A{ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION @ b I I