The High Court · 2025

sriAvinash Gupta, s/o Late D r,r ",r,;,l;ffil;J"":::::f,"tl'Ji[t H.No.4cl5c, 4th Street Heights, Street No.4,-West tvianedpally, Secunderabad. ...2.d RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT 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 C.C. No. 706 ot 2018 on the file of the Court of the XXll Additional Chief Metropolitan trilagistrate, Secunderabad against the p etition e r/a cc u sed No.6. l.A. NO: 2OF 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 dispense with the appearance of the petitioner/Accused no.b in C.C. No. 706 of 20'18 on the file of the Court of the XXll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad against the petitioner/aicused No.6. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 706 of 2O1B on the file of the Court of the XXll Additional Chief tt/etropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad against the petitioner/accused No.6, pending disposal of the same. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l\/emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. R.sandhya, Advocate appering on behalf of Mr. Nageshwar Rao pujari, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. [\I Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant public prosecutor, High court for the state of relangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the Statei Respondent No.1 . The Court made the following: ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3432 of 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.6 in C.C.No.7O6 of 2O18 on the hle of the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Secunderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 42O,477-A, 1O9, 12OB read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 182O.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, on

28.06.2017 at 19:30 hours, respondent No.2 iodged a complaint on behalf of Deccan Club, a registered family club, regarding a suspected large scale financial fraud. Acting on concerns raised by the internal auditors, an internal investigation revealed that the System Administrator, Mr. Asim Kumar Maty/accused No. I, in connivance with former Accountant, Mrs. Manjulatha/accused No.2, aliegedly misappropriated funds to the tune of Rs.30 to 40 lakhs. The accused reportedly diverted cash payments made by club members by cancelling the original entries and generating new \Fi 2 SI{S,J Crl. P.No.3432 of 2025 [ransactions under credit or debit card modes, thereby, preventing actual funds reaching the accounts of club while falsely reflecting account reconciliation. The login credentials embedded in the backend of software revealed a record of cancelled transactions, corroborating their involvement. Allegedly, the fraud went undetected during monthly audits due to the systematic alteration of entries. On receipt of the said complaint, the matter was invcstigated and the petitioner was implicated as accused No.6. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is hled.

3. Heard Ms. R.Sandhya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Nageshwar Rao pujari, learned counsel for petltloner, and Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petrtioner, u'ho is a permanent resident of West Bengal and a businessman by. profession, was falsely implicated in the case and that he has no formal association with the Deccan Club or its management, unlike Accused Nos. 1 to 4 who were employees of the establishment and are residents of 7 3 SKS,J Crl P.No.3432 of 2025 Hyderabad. She further submitted that the petitioner was not named in the initial investigaticn stages and was not treated as a suspect, and yet was later added as co-accrlsed solely on the basis of an inadmissible confession made by Accused No. 1. She contended that the charge sheet .itself reflects serious inconsistencies with respect to the alleged misuse of funds involving the purchase of trucks. In this regard, she pointed out that in paragraph 15 of the charge sheet, the investigating agency alleged that Rs.2O lakhs were handcd over by Accused No. 1 to one Sri Murali Gosh, the petitioner's father-in-iaw, who allegedly purchased' three 12-wheeler trucks bearing registration numbers W833C7489, W833C4825, and WB33D3628 using those funds, and in contrary to the same, paragraph 26 states that the petitioner purchased the same vehicles through TATA Finance and utilised the alleged proceeds for building their bodies. She averred that this internal contradiction between two crucial portions of the charge sheet exposes the speculative and unverified nature of the allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, while advocating that pelitioner is falsely implicated in the case, she prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, quashing the 4 SI(S,J Crl.P. No.3432 of 2025 proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC.No.706 of 2018. 5- Per contra, learned Additional public prosecutor, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and contended that here are no irregularities or illegalities in the implication of petitioner as during the course of inves[igation, it was revealed that the other accused persons handed over the funds accumulated through misapproprration to the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed this Court to dismiss this criminal petition stating that there are no merits in the

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made, and on perusing the material placed on record, it is noted that though there an allegation of fraud over accused persons, it is seen that A1 to A4 are employees of the club, whereas, petitioner is a stranger. The only allegation leveled against the petitioner is that he received the amounts/misappropriated funds from A1 and A2 and purchased tractors utilizing the same. There are absolutely no other set of specihc allegations against the petitioner- Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion ( 5 SKS,.I Crl.P.No.3.132 of 2025 that there is no evidence against the petitioner proving his involvement in the misappropriation of funds, as such, continuation of proceedings against him would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this Criminal Petition is liable to be allowed. In view thereof, this Criminal Petition is allowed, 7. quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.6 in C.C.No.706 of 2018 on the file of the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Secunderabad. Miscelianeous apptications, if any pending, shall also stand closed SD/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Kv dtu\br SECTI FICER The XXll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The Station House Officer, Tukaramgate Police Station, Hyderabad. One CC to Sri. Nageshwar Rao Pujari, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] To, 1 2 J 4 5 Two CD Copies. Ny PSK /PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2310612025 ,.. ,i'. \ .1 ; r. .t: . r. ' .{h. q. ORDER CRLP.No.3432 ot 2025 .J T * 1 0 JUL 2025 z L\ ) Pe;cuE * ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL PETITION ? 10