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 CC No.484O ol 2022 pending on the file of the Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Nampally, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 a 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 investigation in CC No.4840 of 2022 pending on the file of the Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally. Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing t te Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argument: of Sri Naseeruddin Khan, Advocate for Sri. S.Nagesh Reddy for the Petitioner ar I the Sri E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Responder No.1, and of Sri V.T.Kalyan, representing Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, Deputy Solici :r General of lndia, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I TTIE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.2944 o12025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4840 of 2022 pending on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad where the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.3 to be tried under Sections 403,406,420,424 and l2O(B) of Indian Penal Code ('lPC' for brevity)

2. Heard Sri Naseeruddin Khan, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l and Sri V.T.Kalyan, learned counsel, representing Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of lndia for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner without going into the merits of the matters submits that the proceedings in C.C'No.4840 of 2022 a are stayed by this Court on 11.08.2025 and further proceedings are yet to be commenced. He squarely relied upon the Article 20 Sub clause 2 of Constitution of India which has been reproduced as under: 2 " Article 2O(2) of the tndian Constitution protects ag€ i ,st double jeopardy, stating that: Protection in respect of conviction for offences: (l) No person shall be convicted of any offence e:c :pt for violation of a law in force at the time of the commir ;ion of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjectr I to a penalty greater than that which might have been i: flicted under the law in force at the time of the commissiot of the offence. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for th : same offence more than once. (3) No person accused ofany offence shall be compel e I to be a witness against himself. 4 Relying upon the said Article learned counse would like to draw the attention of this Court to the proceedings cc rducted against the petitioner in C.C.No.l19 of 2005 on the flile of Xll Additional I Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. He wou I submit that in the said charge sheet the petitioner has been arrayed is accused No.6 and after conducting thorough trial the petitioner ha:; been found not guilty vide its order dated 07.10.201l, for the offenct:r under Secti J 406 and 420 oflPC and accordingly, the petitioner has been acquitted under Section 248(l) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for brevity)

4.1. He would further submit that subjecting the petitioner to undergo prosecution and punishment under same sections of law arising out of same set of allegations would amount to abuse of process of law. He relied upon the Judgment passed in Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.T.Antony Vs. State of Keralat . He would submit that if the petitioner is allowed to continue to face the prosecution, the valuable right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 20(2) ot Constihrtion of India would be defeated and would stands vitiated. Accordingly, seeks indulgence ofthis Court.

5. Sri V.T.Kalyan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing foi respondent No.2 would submit that the de-facto complainant is the Registrar of Companies and upon the complaint being filed by de-facto complainant, charge sheet has been filed after thorough investigation and the entire crime has been investigated by the CID Police. Hence, would seek to dismiss tha.crimina! pet-ition. ' zoot 1z; ar-o 1c.1.) 276 (sc) 4 \

6. Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor appearin g for respondent No. I sailing on the same lines of learned Cen r rl Government Standing Counsel would submit that after thorou t h investigation charge sheet has been laid down and all the witness:s would speak against the petitioner as he is involved in the said cri re. Unless and until the trial is conducted, the truth cannot be r ticited and the petitioner cannot seek protection under Article 20(2) of Constitution of India in the present case. However, he would s'r rmit that in the instant case the petitioner relied upon the Judgr rent passed ln C.C.No.1i9 of 2005 on the file of Xll Additional (lh :f Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Though no appeal has been iied against the said judgment, the petitioner is acquitted only for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in the said case. In the 1 resent case, the petitioner has to face trial under Sections 403,424 an, 120(8) ofIPC and thus, would seek to dismiss the criminal petition.

1. Having regard to the submissions of learned :ounsel for the petitioner, learned Central Government Standing Cou: sel and leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon considerin 1 the material available on record and upon careful examination of t re same, it is to be.sqgn that the petitioner was tried lor the offences : rnishable under I I\ ...s,' i*iiili} I I I I I 5 Sections 406 and 420 of IPC before learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad vide its judgment dated 01 .10.2011, the said Court in its judgment has acquitted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. On material examination, the present crime as alleged is precisely one and the same as that of the crime in C.C.No.4840 of 2022 where the petitioner was prosecuted under Sections 403, 424 and 120(8) of tPC along with Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

8. This Court placing reliance on the judgment it T.T.Anthony (supra), is of the opinion that the petitioner was prosecuted twice for the same offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and the same would amount to double jeopardy and hence, the petitioner's right under Article 20(2) stands infringed. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4840 of 2022 in respect of Sections 406 and 420 of tPC only. a

9. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.4840 of 2022 irr respect ofSections 406 and 420 ofIPC stands quashed' However, the petitioner has to face the prosecution under Sections 403, 424 arrd 120(B) of IPC. 6

10. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dispost:r of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall st Lnd closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.M.NAGAMANI ASSit i ANT REGISTRAR TION OFFICER P To,

1. The Vl Additional Chief Mekopolitan Magistrate at Nampr y, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, CID police Station, Hyderabir 3. Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for the Sta e of rerangana at Hyderabad IOUT]

4. One CC to SRI S.NAGESH REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, Advocate [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL IKS I 9r T HIGH COURT DATED:18 t111ZO2S ORDER CRLp.No.2944 of 2025 iIt 16 jri20'lo * '7z P * DISPOSING THE CRIII4INAL PETITION J<s -+/y'-" \ '. /r,