Y.nqyi Prakash, Sio v. Prakash Rao, Aged

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G. V. L. Murhty Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Dominic Fernandes The Court made the following: ORDER (Standing Counsel for Enforcement Department) THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.58 of 2o.25 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is hled under Sections 438 ar.d 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short' 'the BNSSJ by the petitioner/ accused to set aside the order dated 18.12.2024 passecl in Crl.M.P. No.3254 of 2024 in S'T'C' No'01 of 2024 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad'

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27 'OB 2OIB M/s.AMEPLacquiredmajorityshareholdingconstituting90'54o/oof the total equitl' share capital of M/s. ABCPL and appointed hve directors to the board ol M/s. ABCPL in addition to the petitioner and one Sri. M.K.V.N. Murthy, who are already serving as the directors ln themonthofJune,20lg,whileverifyingtherecordsandaccount statement, it is noticed that the petitioner and Sri' M'K'V N'Murthy have 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 M.K.V.N.Murthy have misused their powers in issuance of cheques and drawn the amounts fraudulently without obtaint.ng approval of board of directors' Based on the complaint, the Telangana Police registered a case vide Crime No'9O0 of 2Ol9 lor the offences punishable under Sections 418,42O and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPCJ and since the L S'I'S,J CrLR.C.No. 58 ol2025 schedule offences are under the prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2oo2 (for short, 'the Act'), on 23.06.2019 the Enforcement Directorate initiated investigation in ECLR/Hyzo/17 /2o2o for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act. Thereafter, a private complaint was filed vide S.T.c. No.0r of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 174 and 17.5 of the Ipc against the petitioner alleging that though the complainant issued notice in E,CrR/Hyzo/rz /2o2o to the petitioner under Section 50 of the Act on I3.O1.2O21, 22.O1.2O21,

09.O2.2021 and 07.O2.2022, tlne petitioner failed to comply the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner hled Crl.M.p. No. 3254 of 2024 in S.T.C. No.01 of 2024 under Section 257 of the Code oI Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.p.C.J seeking to discharge him as accused in S.T.C. No.O1 of 2024 and the same was dismissed bv the trial Court. Hence, the present revision case.

3. Heard Sri G.V.L.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned .standing Counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a private complaint uide s.T-c. No.01 of 2024 was filed even after closure of the Crime No. 90O of 2079 on l1.ll.2o22. He further submitted that though the FIR was closed as mistake of fact, the proceedings against the petitioner was initiated in ECIR/HyZO/IZ /2O2O under Section 3 of the Act and issued summons to the petitioner under Section 5O of I SKS,J CrLR.C.No. 58 of 2025 the Act He also submitted that the petitioner with due obedience has inc,;nvenience and given his reply to the summons Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal conveyed his through email Revision Case. 5 On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that as per the portal of e-Courts' the case No.RC/02/20 22 pertaining to Crime No'900 of 2Ol9 was still alive and pending belbre the learned III Additional Chie f Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. He further submitted that the petitioner deliberately not zrppeared before the Court even after issuing notices by the complainant- He also submitted that pleading of inconvenience consecutively for four times only shows the intentional omission of the petitioner to comply with his legal duty and that filing of discharging Hence, he PraYed the Court to petition, at this stage, does not arlse dismiss the Criminal Revision Case' In view of the rivai submissions made by both the parties' 6. this Court has penlsed the material evidence available on record' It is stated that the summons were issued to the petitioner on 13'01'2021, 27.O1.2O2L, Og O2.2O2l and 07'O2'2O22 h EClRlHYZOl lT l2O2O under Section 5o of the Act and admittedly, the petitioner has failed to appear before the Court in all four occasions and conveyed his inconvenience through e-mail' It is the contention of the learned 4 -sK.t-' CrLR.C.No. 58 ol' 2()2s "ho* Standing Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has not fi1ed any documentary proof to that Crime No.900 of 2O19was closed as mistake of fact and as per the portal of e_Courts, the police filed the final report of Crime No.90o of 2or9 before the rearned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in case No.RC / 02 / 2022 pertaining to crime No.9o0 of 2or9 and the same is st l alive and pending for adjudication. It is specificaliy contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a private complaint is hled in S.T.C. No.o 1 of 2024 even after crosure of crime No. 9o0 of 2or9 as mistake of fact in final 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 the Court. The Apex court in vinag Tgagi v. Irshad AItr observed t]...at euen such report is subject to acceptance bg the learned. Magi.strate u,tho, in his utisdom, maA or maA not accept such a report. Therefore, there is no force in the said contention of the learned. counser for the petitioner. It is noteworthy that though the petitioner conveyed his inconvenience by replying to the summons through email, the purpose of summons is not for the said reply but for his personal appearance before the concerned authorities. pertinently, since a discharge petition is not maintainable during a summary triar stage in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Subramanium Sethuramqn a. StoLte of 'seqcrt.1 Nos.9185 and 9186 of 2009 / 5 Si6,J Crl.R.C.No. 58 of 2025 Maharashtra2' the case requires trial' trarned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail in Criminal Petition No.28B0 of 2O2O' Whereas, there is no direction by 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 rhat there is no illegality 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 petitioner and the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed' 7 Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed' Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed' SD'- K.SREE RAMA MURTH_Y DEPUTY REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SEGTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally' Hyderabad' One CC to Sri G V. L. Murhty, Advocate [OPUC] one cc to sri Dominic Fernandes (standing counsel for Enforcement Department) [OPUCI 4 Two CD CoPies VFVPSL HIGH COURT DATED: 1910812025 /... .r.../..\\\C . \.}\ ) 4r." ) ";'- 21 ffP ru5 .,,, t /-:S P-\Ti '1' ,2 :j ORDER CRLRC.No.S8 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C b