The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.333 OF 2019 in Crime No. 388 of 2018 on the file of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Judicial t\ilagistrate of First CIass at Warangal in respect of offence under sectaon 420 of the lndian Penal Code 1860 in the interest of justice and equity. l.A. NO: 1OF 202s Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C No.333 OF 2019 in Crime No. 388 of 2018 on the file of the lAddl. Junior Cjvil Judge Cum lAddl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Warangal in respect of offence under section 420 of the lndian Penal Code 1860 including the appearance of the petitioner in connection with the Calendar case in the interest of justice and equity. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of l\ilr MOHD NASEERUDDIN, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr E GANESH, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.13O6 OF 2025 ORDER: The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/ accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2O23 seeking to quash thc charge-sheet in CC No.333 of 2Ol9 in Crime No.388 of 2018 on thc file of the learned I Additional Junior civil Judge-cum I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Warangal in respect of offence under Section 420 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Mohd.Naseeruddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for thc State/ lst respondent. Though notice was ordered, none appeared for thc respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, an advocate enrolled in the year 2022, is the solc accused in C.C.No.333 of 2019, arising out of Crime No.388 of 2018, pending on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-l Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, for the allegecl offence under Section 42O lPC. The petitioner and the second respondent are childhood friends and had certain financial transactions betu,een them. On 06.1 1.2O18, the second respondent lodged a complaint, mischaraiiteri2ing the said transactions as being employment-related !- l'age 2 of 7 and made vague and omnibus allegations, allegedly with a mala fide intent to settle personal scores, particularly relating to a dispute involving his brother. Pursuant to this complaint, FIR No.388 of 20 18 was registered and a charge sheet was ltled on O4.o I .2O 19.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no charges have been framed to date despite filing ol the charge sheet and a memo of irppearance on 23.06.2023. It is further contcnded that the FIR and c harge sheet do not disclose any specific allegations of fraudulent intent at the inception of the transaction nor d<l they contain material particulars or dates necessary to:rltract the offencc of cheating undt:r Section 42O IPC. Bank statements on rccord indicate mutual exchange of funds, including Rs.4,09,500/ received from the second respr>ndent and Rs.2,O3,085/- returned through bank transfers, u'ith the remaining amount allegedl-y repaicl in cash. The petitioner sr-rbmits that the investigating officer failetl to consider these facts, did not examine independent witnesses, and conducted one-sided investigat.ion, amounting to dereliction of duty. The learned counsel for the petitione r relies on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hira LaI Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBII, Uma Shaukar Gopalika v. State of Bihar2, S.V. L. Murthy v. CBI3 and Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil ':ooi(,i)scc:5t '(too:)to sct -.i i6 I I I Pagc J ol 7 Kumar Agarrrala to contend that mere breach of financial understanding, without fraudulent intent lrom inception, does not constitute an offence under Section 42O lPC.lt is further submitted that the petitioner had entered into an agreement \.ith the second respondent's brother for purchase of Sri Apex Educational Society for a total consideration of Rs.S crores and had paid Rs.53 lakhs as earnest money. Upon failure of the seller to perform the contract, post-dated cheques issued towards refund were dishonourcd, leading the petitioner to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act vide CC No.4i3 of 2018. The present criminal case is a counterblast, filed with oblique motives to pressurize the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner asserts that the FIR, complaint and charge sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 42O IPC and continuation of proceedings amounts to abusc of process of law. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that LWs. 1 and 2 are the interested witnesses and LW3 is the circumstantial witness and his evidence shows that he was informed by the de-facto complainant that he was cheated by the petitioner for an amount of Rs.5,3O,000/- in the matter of arranging employmcnt and hence he i t 1009) (r SCC 77 '(r007)7 Scc -r7l Pr!. { r)l a - lodged a complaint against the petitioner. The said evidence of LW3 is contrary to the evidence of Lw1 wherein he categorically stated that at the f-rrst instance, the petitioner took Rs.70,t)00/ from him for an employment but after lapse of 2 years, when LW 1 the petitioner, by promising to arrangc a job in USA the arranglng questionecl petitioner took Rs.5,00,000/- from LW1 and returned the carlier amount of Rs.7O,OOO/-. LW1 further stated in his statement that apart lrom the a bor.e moncy, the petitioner also made I hc 2nd respondent to pay an amount of Rs.3O,0O0/- towards charity. There is no u'hisper regarding thc amount of Rs.7O,OOO/- returned by the petitioner to the 2"d respondent either in the complaint, charge-sheet or statement of LW3. (b) He further submits that the case of the 2nd respondent suffers lrom suppression of facts as the earlier trallsactions or disputes between the petitioner and the brother of the 2nd respondent \,\rere not brought on rccord. Bank transactions and st.rtements confirm a mutual cxchange of funds, including Rs'4,O9'50t)/ - from respondent No.2 and Rs.2,O3,O85/ - returned by the petitioner through bank transfers, u,ith the remaining sum repaid in cash and the same pertains tc' another transaction completely between the petitioner and the. brother o[ the 2u'l respondent, which has no connection to the l'agc 5 ol 7 present matter. Stating thus, the learned counsel lor the petitioner secks to allow Lhe present criminal petition. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that unless and until the full-fledged trial is conducted the truth or otherwise pertaining to the case do not come out and hence, quashing the present proceedings, at this stage, is not warranted. Stating thus, he prays to dismiss the present criminal petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel lor the petitioner and thc learned Assistant Government Pleader and upon peruszrl of the materizrl on record, it is evident from the petitioner's statement of account for the period from O I .04.2017 to Ol.O7 .2017 that the petltioncr transferred amounts of Rs.49,O0O/- on 03.O5.2077, Rs.2,O85/- on O5.05.2O17, Rs.52,OOO/- on O8.O5.2017, and Rs.25,O00/- each or.r

23.Or.2O17, 23.05.2017, 26.05.2017 and 13.06.2017, totalins Rs.2,O3,O85/-. This supports the petitioner's contention that he repaid Rs.2,03,085/- through bank transfers and the balancc amount out of Rs.4,O9,50O/- was repaid in cash. The transaction, therefore, appears to be civil in nature involving recovery of money- Consequently, initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 42O IPC is unu,arranted.. and filing ol a charge sheet for the said offence, in thc absencc of essential ingredients, cannot be sustained. Thc said proposition of law is very much fortified by the decision of the Hon'bl<: I'aa!'6 ol 7 - Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors.,s rvherein it was categorically held that criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., or Article 226 of the Constitution where the allegations in the FIR rlo not disclose a cogniz,able offence, are manifestly false, absurd, or made with mala fide intent, amounting to abuse of the process of law. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Cotrrt in the matter of S.V.L. Murthy v. CBI (supra) also held that a mcre breach o[ contract or failure to repay a loan does not, by itself, constitute the offencc of chcating under Section 42O IPC, unless it is clearly shor.r'n that there u'as fraudulcnt or dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction. The Court emphasized that criminal liability cannot be imposcd for a purely civil dispute unless spccihc allegations of deceit or fraudulent inducement from the beginning art' clearlY made out'

6. When the facts of the case on hand are tested on the touchstone of the proposition of law laid dou'n in the decisions referred supra, this Court is of the considered view that the present criminal procee6ings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, rhe criminal petition is allowed. ' lgt)l StrpP (l)S('C'-'i-15 I'.rgc 7 ol7

7. In the result, the present criminal petition is allowed- Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Addl. Judicial ftilagistrate of First Class at Warangal. 2. The Station House Officer, lnthezargunj Police Station, Warangal. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor. High Court for the State of Telangana. at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Mr. MOHD NASEERUDDIN, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies s 5 (Yz HIGH COURT DATED: 1110912025 .ra ,J 1q t[! ?u * * 1)!:j,Af ORDER CRLP.No.13l)6 of 2025 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is Allowed' n ) ilr( L&t