The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS-2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the entire records rn C.C.No. 2658 of 2024 on the file of the court of the lAddl, Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally against the Petitioner/Accused herein and quash the same as abuse of process of law. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS-2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner/Accused in C,C.No. 2658 of 2024 on the file of the court of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xll Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, pendrng disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorindum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P GAJENDRA MURTHY, Advocate tor the Petitioner and SRl. M. VIVEKANANDA REDDY, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 'l and of Sri- G. VIJAY RAJ, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: OROER r) a t THE HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE K. SU.IANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3953 0F 2C'25 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section ii28 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Salhita, 2023 by the petitioner st:eking the Court to quash the proceedings against him in C'C No il658 of 2024 on the f e of Xll-Additional Judicial Magistrate o: First Class' Medchal-Matkajgiri District at Kukatpally' The offences alleged against tJre petitioner are under Sections 352, 3:i1 (3) and 79 of Baratiya NyaYa Sanhita, 2O23.

2. The complainant, a businessman and consr'illant in the real estate freld, invested in Dhruva Projects situatcl at S R Nagar, Hyderabad. The company invited investors to invr:st money under specifrc terms and conditions' Mr. Nomula l)zrndu Rangam- petitioner herein approached the complainant arld expressed his invest, subsequently ir vestecl nearly will.ingrress to Rs.3,OO,OO,OOO/-. The company registered the lar d in equal share of his amount, and as per the Memorandum r I Understanding (MOU), capital and goodwill amounts were paid to the consignee from time to time. The complainant received Rs l,OO,O0,0OO/- as z principal amount arrd approximately Rs.g7,0O,OO0/_ as goodwill amount up to O4.O3.2O24. However, when the complainant tried to contact the petitioner, his whereabouts were unkrrcr.n and with great difliculty, through his son, Mr. Nomula Niraajan, the complainant learnt that petitioner was involved in serious fraudulent business activities, ard a case was registered aqainst him on the complaint of Telangana Civil Suppliers oflicials. Further it is stated that in June 2024, petitioner contacted the company and requested to close his share of property for Rs 2,55,O0,0O0/_. He asked the company to send the payment to his business establishment, Sri Veerabhadra Industries. Unknowingly, the company paid Rs. 1,O7,5O,00O/- to Sri Veerabhadra Industries and Rs.18,25,OOO/- to Mrs. Nomula Raja Rathnalu,s account. When the company realized the transaction was improper, they requested the petitioner to return the money_ Instead of returning tJre money, petitioner started blackmailing and threatening the complainant and his family. The complainalt received anonymous ca.lls and life threats, causing sleepless nights. Despite the company's willingness to repay his sharc, petitioner demarrded more amount and mentioned the names of Abid Bhai, Sampath Bhai, and I I I l l I 3 Ramesh Goud, claiming they would do anything rrt his signal As such, the complainant requested necessary acticn against the petitioner arrd others, leading to frling of the FIR.

3. Heard Sri P.Gajendra Murthy, learned t;ounsel for the t petitioner, Sri M.Vivekalalda Reddy, learned ,\:;sista;rt Public Prosecutor appearing for tlie l"t respondent-State .md Sri G.Vijay Raj, Iearned counsel appearing for the 2"d responcent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the lletitioner is that the learned Ma.gistrate ought to have perused tl-le contents of complaint along with investigation report as the allegations does not speak about the provision of law charS;el against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate, ought not to have taken cogrrizance as no independent material '*'as brought either in the form of witnesses or documentary by the investipation agency. A complaint was registered against the 2"d respondent and others in FIR No.167 of 2O24 on the hle of Devuruppula l)clice Station for the offences under Sections 120-E}, 384, 365, 323. 341, 294-8, and. 506 r/w.34 of Indian Pena-l Code for their inhuntan acts and the petitioner was made to suffer huge loss for the dir;honest intention : : I t t I i t t I 4 o of 2nd respondent to cause monetary loss and he is hand in glove with Druva Projects company and its personnel driving the petitioner for huge investments and cooked up false stories to usurp it for wrongful gain. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hald, learned counsel for the 2"d respondent hled counter stating that the complainant, a businessmart, invested in Dhruva Projects. The petitioner expressed willingness to invest arld invested approximately Rs.3,OO,0O,0OO /-' Ttre petitioner rec.irred an equal share of land for his investment and was paid goodwill from time to time. By O4.O4 '2024, the petitioner had received Rs.1,87,O0,OO0/ -. When the complainant wanted to return the further invested amount, the petitioner became untraceable. It was discovered that the petitioner was involved in serious fraudulent business activities, and a case was booked against him by Telangana Civil Supplies Ofhcials ln Jtne 2024, the petitioner contacted Dhruva Projects and the complainant, requesting release of Rs.2,55,00,0O0/ - to his account in Sri Veerabhadra Industries. Accordingly, Rs. I ,O7,5O,OOO/ - was paid to Sri Veerabhadra Industries, and Rs. 18,25,O00/- was paid to the 5 petitioner's wife, Mrs. Nomula Rajaratnalu. I{owever, the transaction was deemed improper, and the corr.plainant and Dhruva Projects requested the money to be return:ct. It is further stated that instead of returning the money, the petitioner allegedly started blackmailing, threatening, arrd extorting the complainant and Dhruva Projects leading to lodging of a compl.dnt and all the issues would come up only during the course of tria:. Hence, the 2"d respondent prayed to dismiss tJ:is petition.

6. Considering tJle submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record the allegations against the petitioner are that he threatened 2'd respondent stating that they have to return the amount more than the amount he is entifled to as agreed and petrtioner took the names of Abid Bhai, Ra mesh Goud and blackmailed the 2,d allegations in the complaint show that there are business transactions between 2nd respondent and accllscd. However petitioner herein also lodged a report against the 2,,r respondent. There are cases and counter cases against both parrie.s which are severe in nature ald the same requires adjudication. As such at Sampattr Bhai, ald responlent. The t ( \ I l i I I I i I I I I I 5 (v this stage, petitioner proceedings. rs not entitled for quashing of the Hence, the Criminai petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shal arso stand closed I To, //TRUE COPY// SO/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECT }iJ OFFICER l The X', Additionar Metroporitan Magistrate. Kukatpary at prashanthnaoar 2. rhe Station House offcir, s;;;ffia"g;;;oi)#1,",,on, cyberabad ' Lfir:Af"rP,blic 4. One cc to sit. p cAjFl,r_DFA MURTHy Advocate [opuc] 5. one cc to SRt. c. vtJAy RAJ, A;;;;# fa;",ff 6. Two CD Copies Prosecui"i,iigh il,n"r", ti .,r," or reransani PM/gh w HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 ORDER GRLP.No.3953 of 2025 \ t G Ik{E S I.q re o i ? ll0t/ 2E ,\ ('\( z C) I a RspArc HEO DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION R ced4 &."