The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings against the Petitioner/ AccUsed No. 1 in C C.No.17B9 of 2022(FlR No. 213 ot 2022 P.S Raidurgam), On the file of the Xlll Addl. MetropoIitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendra Nagar, R.R.District, including appearance of petitioner pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitron and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KUTURU RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri [Vt.Vivekananda Reddy, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on hehalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondr:nt No.2. T['le Court made the following; ORDER ,r-/ v HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3196 of 2023 ORDER This Criminal Petition has been tllcd bt the petitioner /accuSed No.l, seeking to quash the ploceeclings C.C.No.1789 ol 2022 on the file of the XIII Additional Mctropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar. I{anga Reddy District, fbr tlic of'fences punishable under Sections 4 06 and 420 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'lPC') and 156(3) olthe Code of the (lriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.l'.C).')

2. The case of the prosecution, in briei is that ar:cused No. 1 , a close lriend of the complainant for the past ten years, approacl-red the courplainant in January 2020 seeking financial assistance fbr investment in a project of SS Constructions, owncd by accused No.2. Thc project related to laying roads on the National Ilighrvay at Kurnool, allegedly awarded to SS ConstnrcLior.rs by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Believing their lt'presen tations, the complainant advanced Rs.15,00,000/- in February 2020, which was transferred to accused No.2's account, on the asstrrance of repaymcnt within 45 days. In March 2020, the rccused again 2 sought Rs.10,00,000/_, and the cornplainanr paid Rs.7,00,000/_ through bank transfers and Rs.j,00,000/- in cash. They again promised to return Rs.25,00,000/- rvithin 4-i days but failcd to do so. In October 2020, the zrccused again sought- Rs.20,00,000/_, assuring that a toral of Rs.45,00,000/_ would be repaid within 45 days. After receiving the rnoney, they ncither repaid the arnounr nor responded to calls, and later. blockcd the complainant.s number. Their conduct shows clear dishonest intention to cheat. When confronted, both accused rhrcatened the contplainant rvith dire consequences. Fearing fbr his lile and propefiy, thc cornplainant has filed the present complaint. 3 Heard Mr.K.Ravinder Rcddy, Iearncd counsel lor thc petrtloner, Mr.M.Vivekananda Rcdd1,, Iearned Assistant public Prosecutor for respondent No.l and Mr.Ra leamed counsel representing M/s.Joshi and Chillara I_egal Associates LLp. Icarned counsel lor respondent No.2 VI,

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thc petitioner has not committed any off,ence and has been falselv irnplicated in the present case merely because she is a friend of accused No.2. Even according to the allegations made in the I i I i I I I I I I I I l 3 complaint and thc charge sheet, the ingredients .)l' the alleged ollcnces arc not attracted against the petitioncr. lIc furtl'rcr stibnrittccl thrrt rcspoudent No.2 herself has stated in the conrplaint that, belicving the representations rrade by accuscd \o.2 and alier going tlirough thc contract docutncnt awarded in ttrvour ol S.S. C'onstructions. r-cprcscntcd by its proprietor, R. Sr-rman Mr-tr-ali Ileddv, accused No.2, she had paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to accrrsed No.a. 'l'hcrcaftcr, she gave further arnount to acctrsed No.2 on various dzrtes, and the total amount came to Rs.4-5,00,000i- llorvevcr, accuscd No.2 failed to repay the said i,nlount despitc rcpcated derlancls rnade by respondent No.2. He further submitted that resporrdeut No.2 lras neither paid nor transferred any iulount to the petitioner. -l-hc cntire amount was paid only to accused No.?. Nlclcly bccausc accused No.2 faited to refund the sr.id anrount, the petitioner has bccn lalsely implicated as accused Nc. t. There is no dishonest intcntion on the part of the petitioner. The entire allcgations o1'dishonest intention and failure to repav the amount within the stiilulated time are only against accusecl No.2. Hence, the ingredients ol the alleged offences are not attra(tcd against the pc.titioner. -I'he nature of the allegations made in the complaint pertains onlv to recovery of money due and payable by accused 4 .fherefore, No.2, and the said ailegations are purery civir in nature. the continuation of criminal proceedings a_eainst the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of laiv. [n support ol.his contention, leamed counsel relied upon thc judgr.nents of the Hon,blc Apex Court in Indra Jeet Singh and ttnother v. The State of tlttor Pradesh and anothert and Jupall-y Lokshntikontho Rcdtt.1, t. Sttte of Andhra pra(lesh antl onother2.

5. rvas dishoncst Per contra, leamed counsel lor responclerrt No.2 r.ehertrcntll contended that the petitioner hersell had inrroduccd accuscd No.l to respondent No.2. At the instance of thc petitioncr, rcspondent No.2 have a huge arnount to accused No.2. .l.herc intention on the part of both the peritioner and accused No.2. and specific allegations have been levelled against tlte pctitioner to attract the alleged offences. Whether the pctitioner. has actualll, cornmitted the offences or not has to be revealed only afier a lull_ fledged trial before the trial Court. On the basis of the grounds urged in the criminal petition, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings, particularly when she has not denied her relationship with accused No.2. :crlA Nos t88e- t89o of 2024. dr. t8.09.2025 zul) LrveLaw (SC) g93 I i I 5

6. Having considered thc rival submissions llade by the respective partie-s and aticr perusal ol the material lrvailable on rccold, it Leveitls that respondent No.2 filed a priviltc conlplaint Lrncler Scctiotr 100 of thc Cr.l'].C. on 28.02'2022 'lhe lcarncd Nlagistratc rel-crred the said cornplaint to tht police lirr inrestigation under Scction I56(3) of the Cr'P C 'l hereafier, the In!estigatirrg O1'llcer, aficr conducting investigatiorr' llled a llnal repoft, and thc lcarned Magistrate took cognizance 'rr'the allcgcd ofl-ences and issued sumutons to thc petitioner and zrccusecl No.2 in C.C. No.l789 ol'1012.

1. Upon perusal of the complaint and charge sl'cet, it reveals that respondcnr No.2 initially gave an amount of Rs 15,00'000/- to accused No.l. Thereafter', rcspondent No l Rs,4,00.000/- on 13.03.2020, I{s.3,00,0001 or 30'03'2020, transferred Rs.1,00,000/- on 23.03.2020, and Rs.20,00,000/- in October 2020 into thc accounl of S.S. Constructions. Even act'ording to the complaint, the total amount given to accused No 2, who is the ploprietor of S.S. Constructions, comes to Rs.45,00,000/- The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that she irrtroduced accused No.2 to respondent No.2, and believing thc rcpresentalions 6 of accused No.2, respondent No.2 gave the said a,rount to him. The major allegations are levelred against accused No.2, who faired to refund the amount, despire repeated demands.

8. 1'aking into consideration the above said allegations, rhis Court is of the considered view that any dishonest intention, if an1,, is attributable only to accused No.2, and there are no specific allegations against thc petitioner to attract thc ingredients of the alleged offences. 9 In Indra Jeet Singh,s case (supra), the Hon,ble Suprerne Court held that the dispute pertaining to payments of money rnrtiation of criminal proceedings would be unfoftu,ate as also abuse of process of law. That apar1, no dishonest intention could be shown to satis! the requirement of Section 420 0f the tlrc. I0. In Jupaily Lakshmikantha Reddy,s case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the inherent powers of the I{igh Courl under Section 4g2 of the Cr.p.C. must be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law where uncontroverted allegations fail to disclose the commission of any offence. It further observed that the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery t II 7 under Sections 120, 465, 468 and 471 ofthe IPC wera not satisfied, as the appe llarrt's institution, being housed in a buil'1ing below 15 metl-cs, was not required to obtain a Fire Departncnt NOC tbr recognition. Clonscquently, the altcged false representation could not have induced the Education Dcpartment to act in a manner it would not har e otherwise done. It emphasised that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained in the absence ol dishonest intention or ulongfuI gain/loss and accordingll' quashed the 1 I proceedings to prevent miscarriagc of justice aud unnecessary harassment of the appellant.

11. In thc casc on hand, the specific allegations are levelled agair-rst accusecl No.2, that he is not retunding the arrount received lrorn respondent No.2. The above said allegations d') not constitute any ol-tbnce against the petitioner, including olfences under Sections 406 ancl 420 of the lPC.

12. F-or the loregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/accuscd No.l in C.C.No.l789 of 2022 on the file of the XIII Ad<litional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar. Ranga Ileddy District, is a clear abuse of process of 8 n law. Therefore, whilc exercising its jurisdiction under Section 4g2 of the Cr.P.C., this Courl is of the considered view that the said proceedings are liable to be quashed, and accordingly quashed. I3. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// l-o, 1 fhe XIll Addl. A/et,-opolitan lvlagistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendra Nagar, R R District 2 Tne Station House Officer, Police Station, Raidurgam 3 Two CCs to tne PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4 One CC to SRI KUTURU RAVINDER REDDY PRATAP REDDY Advocate loPUCl 5 Two CD Copies I [)K/S,'\ ! I ! z I FIIGH COURT DA'IED:1211112025 UT ? .St q5\ " \\' :i_t, .4- s l- LI D ORDER CP.LP.No.3196; of 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED q w