High Court · 2025

CPC praying that in the circumstances stated ,r{" High court may be pleased to 'iitp"".i"g the nresence of the "-""J,ii""1 Ir,la=i"n ol 2024 on the file ol Hon'ble Metropolitan r,"Vu"r"urj. p"naing disposal of the present Petition under Section 151 of in the afiidavit filed in support of th stav all further Proceedings' ln iJitlon"tlu""used in STC No' o2 "sl..i"". lrage court, NamPallY' revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G V L MURHTY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES (SC FOR ED) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISTON CASE No.64 of 2O2S ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and, 442 o[ the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, .the BNSS') by the petitioner/accused to set aside the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.p. No.3253 of 2024 in S.T.C. No.02 of 2024 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.OB.2Olg M/s. AMEPL acquired majority sharehording constituting 9o.s4ok of the total equiby share capital of M/s. ABC.L and appointed five directors to the board of M/s. ABCPL in addition to the pehtioner and one Sri.V.Ravi prakash, who are already serving as the directors. In the month of June, 2O19, while verifring the records and account statement, it is noticed that the petitioner and Sri. V.Rlqi prakash had fraudulently drawn huge amounts from the bank of M/s. ABCpL for themselves and also paid some amount to Sri. Clifford pereira by abusing the authority vested in them by signing the instruments. It is stated that the petitioner and sri V.Ravipraskash have misused their powers in issuance of cheques and drawn the amounts fraudulently without obtaining approval of board of directors. Based on the complaint, the Telangana police registered a case uide CrimeNo.g.O of 2079 for the offences punishable under Section s 4lg, 42Oand 409 of the Indian penal Code, 1g60 (for short, ,the IpCJ and since the l l I 2 .S(S,J CrLR.C.No.64 of 2025 1n schedule offences are AclpOO2 (for short, under the Prevention of Money Laundering 'the Act), otr 23'062019 the Enforcement F;CIR|HYZOllT l2O2O for the Directorate initiated investigatron offences punishable under Section 3 of the Act' Thereafter' a private complaint was hled uide S'T'C' No'O2 of 2024 fot the offences punishable under Sections 174 and 175 of the IPC against the petitioner alleging that though the complainant issued notice in IiCIRIHYZOIIT l2O2O to the petitioner under Section 50 of the Act on 13.ol.2O2 l, 27 .O 1.2o2 l, og'o2'2o2 I and 07'o2'2022' tLie petitioner failed to conply the same' Aggrieved by the same' the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 3253 of 2()24 in S'T'C' No'02 of 2024 wder Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure' 1973 (for short' 'the Cr'P'C'J seeking to discharge him as accused in S T'C' No'02 of 2024 and rhe SamewasdismissedbythetrialCourt.Hence,thepresentrevision Heard Sri G'V'L'Murthy' learned counsel lor the petltroner 3. and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. Perused the material available on record' 4 L,earned counsel for the petitloner submitted that a Private conplairrtuideS'T'C' No'O2 of 2024 was filed even after closure of the Crime No. 9OO of 2Ol9 ot t5'17 '2022 ' He further submitted that though the FIR was closed as mistake of fact' the proceedings against the petitioner was initiated in ECIR/ HyZ o r rr r 2o2o under Section 3 of the Act and issued summons to the petitioner under Section 50 of , 3 S'KS,J CrL.R.C.No.64 of 2025 the Act. He also submitted that the petitioner with due obedience has conveyed his inconvenience and given his reply to the summons through email. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Revision Case.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No' 1 0pposed the submissions of the iearned counser for the petitioner stating that as per the portal of e_Courts, the case No.RC/O2/2O22 pertaining to crime No'g00 0f 207g was still alive and pending before the learned III Additional chief Metropoiitan Magistrate, Hyderabacr. He further submitted that the petitioner deliberately not appeared before the Courteven after issuing notices by the complainant. He also submitted that pleading of inconvenience consecutively for four times only shows thc intentional omission of the petiiioner to comply with his legal dut5r and that filing of discharging petition, at this stage, does not arise. Hence, he prayed the court to dismiss the crriminal Revision Case

6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the material evidence available on record. It is stated that the summons were issued to the petition er on 13.01.2027, 27.01.2021, O9.O2.2O2\ and O7.O2.2O22 in ECIR/HLZO/ tT /2O2O under Section 50 of the Act and admittedly, the petitioner has failed to appear before the Court in all four occasions and conveyed his rnconvenience through e_mail. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has not filed 4 SKS,-' Ctl.R.C.No.64 of 2025 any documentary proof to show that Crime No gOO of 2Ol9 v'ras closed as mistake of fact and as per the portal of e-Courts' the Police fiied the lrnal report of Crime No 90O of 2Ol9 before the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' Hyderabad' in case No 'RC I 02 12022 pertaining to Crime No'9O0 of 2Ol9 and the same is stiil alive and pending for adjudication' It is specihcally contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a private complaint is fi1ed in S T'C' No.O2 of 2024 evenafter closure of Crime No' 9OO of 2Ol9 as mistake of fact in hnal report, thus' when predicate offence is already closed' there is no question of further prosecution' Whereas' in the present case, till date the said final report is not accepted by thc court The Apex Court it Vinag Tyagi a' Irshad AIir observed Lkrat euen such report is subject to acceptonce bg tLrc leamed' Magistrate uho' in his utisdom, maA or maA not accept such a report' Therefore' there is no force in the said contention of the learned counsel forrthe petitioner' It is noteworthy that though l-he petitioner conveyed his inconvenience by replying to the summons through email' the purpose of summons isnotforthesaidreplybutforhispersonalappearancebeforethe concerned authorities' Pertinently' since a discharge petition is not maintainable during a summary trial stage in view of the judgment of the APex Court ln Subramcrnium Sethuroiman a' Sta:te of case requires trial' lrarned counsel for the Maharashtra2, the petitioner also contended that the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail Whereas, there is no direction bY in Crimina,l Petition No'736 of 2O2l 'sel1crl.1 Nos 9185 and 9186 ()f2009 ',ttn zoo+ sc +zt L 5 SrS,J CrLR.C.No.64 of202S this Court in respect of not calling the petitioner for investigation. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, having respectable agreement with the view taken by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, is of the opinion that there is no illegaliff or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court warranting inference by this Court as it is not the stage to discharge the proceedings against the petitionerand the criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 7 Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this petition shall standclosed. Sd/- T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR A \ I \ v SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Hyderabad [OUT]

1. The lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Banjarahills Fotice dtation, Hyderabad 3 Two ccs to Pubric prosecutor, High court for the Staie otretangana at 4. One CC to Sri G V L Murhty, Advocate IOPUCI 5. One CC to Sri Dominic Fernandes (SC FOR eby, AOvocate tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies W ABK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 19tOBt2O2S ORDER CRLRC.No.64 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE CRLRC 1 \g )1" "/ \\. '.j) .! ,,, ',/ \ i,"-", i;;r... -l 10 sEP 2r5 * ( Soa16,'' '--..;, I