The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3392 0F 2025 Between Rai Kumar. S/o. Govinda Das, Aged 41 years, Occ poiof,ingri,'P S. Dantan, West Midnapur, West Bengal Business, R/o ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 A D 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor', High Court Buildings' i'&tl;( Hyderrtia tnroi,sr''P S Tukaramsate' Hvderabad

2. Sri Avinash GuPta, S/o H-No.4cl5c, 4th Stree. Secunderabad- Late D.N. Gupla, Aqed 60 years Occ Bustness' R/o Heights, Streei No.4, West [Vlarredpally, ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS prayrng that in the crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition' the High Court may De ; qrrsh the C C No 706 of 2018 on the file of the XXll Addl Chief ;[;; [leiropotitan Uagistrate, at Secunderabad against the petrtioner/accused No 5' r.A . NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances statedinthelr,4emorandumofGroundSofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybe petitioner/Accused no5 in CC ;[;;;;;d"n." No.T06of20lBonthefileoftheXXllAddl.ChieftVletropolitanatSecunderabad algainst the petitioner/accused No 5' *,tt the appearance of lhe l.,A' NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the l\ilemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be ;i;;t;J to stay of all furtheiproceedings in C C No 706 of 2018 on the file of the XXll Addl. Chief lvletropolitan Ma"gistrate, at Secunderabad against the petitio ner/accused No.5, pending disposal of the same' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri NAGESHWAR RAO pUJARt, Advocate for the petitioner and SRI E. cANESH, the Assistant Pubric prosecutor on beharf of respondent No. i and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER l I i l I I I l l I l: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.3392 OF 2o25 ORDER: This criminal petition is Iiled by the petitioner/ accused No.5 under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.706 of 2018 on the file of XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, registered under Sections 406, 4OB, 42O, 477-A, 109 120(B) r/w 34IPC

2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been frled on 28.06.2017 by one Avinash Gupta, President of the Deccan Club alleging misappropriation of funds against employees of the Deccan Club. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No. 136 of 2017 was registered by P,S. Tukaramgate, Secunderabad, for the offences under Sections 406, 4O8, 42O, 477-A, 109, 120(8) IPC arraying A1 to ,{6. Thereafter, investigation has been carried out by L.W.57 and charge sheet was laid in C.C.No.7O6 of 2018 on the file of XKI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. The petitioner herein is A5 Page 2 ofS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the police conducted investigation arraying the petitioner as A5. Except stating that A5 involved along with ,{6, who is none other than the father-in_law of ,A.1, who had purchased trucks from West tsengai, there is nothing against the petitioner/A5. He also submits that the coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the proceedings against A6 in Criminal Petition No.3432 of 2025, vide order dated 23.O6.2025 rnainly on the ground that the police has not conducted investigation as per the material placed on record before the sard Court ald 4.6 is a stranger and that the only allegation levelled against ,4.6 was that he has utilised the funds received from A1 and A2 for purchasing tractors and misappropriated the funds. He further submits that during the course of investigation, the police found that A6 purchased vehicles through TATA finance and utilised the alleged proceeds for building their bodies. He also submits that A6 is a stranger to the alleged misappropriation of funds. Since there is no evidence against A6 proving misappropriation of funds, continuation of criminal - / Page 3 of5 proceedings is an abuse of process of law, as such, the proceedings against A6 were quashed'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present petitioner is arrayed as A5 in C.C.No.706 of 2018. There is no specihc allegation against him. There is no evid.ence to show that A5 misappropriated the funds. There is no relationship that has been estabiished by the police with A1, as such, continuance of criminal proceedings against A5 is nothing but abuse of process of law, subjecting the petitioner/A5 to tribulations of trial is not warranted and seeks to quash the proceedings against petitioner/A5.

5. On the other hald, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there was misappropriation of funds to a tune of Rs.1.50 Crores and that A1 has misused his official position in the club and had transferred funds to the accounts of his kith and kin and one among them is A5, who misappropriated the funds and that trial has to be conducted. He also submits that A5 is absconding and that he is not cooperating with investigation, the truth or otherwise can only be elicited if the petitioner/A5 is Page 4 of5 subjected to investigation, and sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant hrblic prosecutor and upon perusal of the record placed before this Court and also after perusal of the charge sheet, there is no specific role attributed agajnst A5 in the misappropriation of funds. The petitioner/A5 does not fall within the ambit of Section 40g of IpC. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereunder: "Section 4O8. Ci.minal Breach of Trust bg clerk or seruant Who-euer, being a clerk or seruqnt or emploged. as a clerk or seruant, and. being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with propertg, or with ang domtnion ouer propertA, coimits criminal breach of trust in respict of titot prop"itg, shall be punished with tmpisonment of iesciption for a term which mag extend. io ,.u"n qears, and. shqll also be liable to fine.', 7. 'eitier It is an admitted fact that the petitioner/A5 is neither the agent of the Deccan Club nor he has been vested with any funds to manage the affairs of the Club. Therefore, subjecting him to an offence under Section 40g of IpC and consequent Sections against the petitioner does not withstand to scrutiny of law. If the petitioner is allowed to // /. 7 undergo tribulations of trial, the same would arnount to wastage of precious judicial time of the trial Court.

8. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A5 in C.C.No.7O6 of 2018 on the file of XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Secunderabad and accordingly, quashed.

9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO IS ANT REGISTRAR A SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The XXll Additional Chief IVetropolitan [/lagistrate at Secunderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Tukaramgate Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 5 Two CD Copies GIVGH HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 ORDER CRLP.No.3392 of 2025 I I .r',,. t- 1 riE r l^ (. ':l 03 sEP zffi - .. ^, ,A,('. .i-.:_;:-:_,/ '',,- 1| -./ THE GRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED