The High Court · 2025

2. SHO, Hayathnagar Police Station., Hayathnagar, Hyderabad. 3. Mr.Nalla Bal Reddy, S/o Mr.Nalla Anji Reddy Aged 55 years, Occ.Proprietor, M/s Manikanta Tyres Office al7-118, Plot No 33, 34, Peddamberpet, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLANANTS 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 Charge Sheet filed in CC No. 5ffi12025 and the order of the Learned Magistrate dated 26/03/2025 taking cognisance of the offences under ( Sections 405, 420, 503 and 506 IPC and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (Main Prayer amended as per court order dt:2210912025 vide l.A. No. 3l2025l 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 stay all further proceedings including appearan I ) of the Petitioner in Crime No. 1 '105 of 2024 (FlR 1 105/2024) before tht: Honoruable XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Hay:t rnagar' pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tl- ( Memorandum of Grounds of Criminar Petition and upon hearing the arguments f Sri K R RAMAN ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. S. Madhavi Assistant rublic Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 & 2 and of Ms. F Venkata Ratnam Representing Ms. S. Sumalatha Advocate for the Respondent I o. 3. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V'VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITTON No.4OOO of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "the BNSS") by the petitioner/accused, to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.558 of 2025 pending on the file of the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar for the offences punishable under Section'405' 42O, 5O3 and 506 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for thc pctitioner, Ms' S'Madhavi' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor apllcarirlg for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Ms. S.Sumalatha, Iearned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that accused is the CEO of the Skyshade Daylights Private Limitccl cornp'rny and he had many orders on hand liom ttrc Telangan:t Ciovernment to manufacture and supply Tensile Strr-tr:tures Tht:refore, the petitioner approached one Bh.SrirriVtrs lirr rnorle-v' u'ho in turn |ecommended the de-facto comlllztiuarrt to ztdvlltrce the loan .rmount to the accused. Tl'rerefot.r:, ttrc petitir;rrer lrorrorved an 2 amount of Rs.1,5O,OOO,OOO/- from the de-[act< complainant with a promise' Lo repay the same. But the perr:ioner did not pay any amount. The de-facto complainan, approached Bh.Srinivas to l-relp him to recover the mr,: rey from the petitioner. The de-facto complainant received rn amount o[ Rs.50,O0,0OO/- lrom the petitioner till Novt:rrber, 2022 at different ir-rtcn'als. The petitioner failed to rep€ y tl-re balance amourlt. On 07.O5.2024 the petitioner's hencl men came to the housc of thc de-facto complainant and dcrr anded him to deliver the original MOU. When the de-faclr complainant refused, they abused him in hlthy language ir rd tl-rreatcned him with dire consequences. Accordinglv thc d<: f:rcto complzrinant lr:,clgccl a complaint before the H:ry,t -hnag:rr l)oliccr Station, burt the police refused to register the <:o nplaint :rs thcr complair-rt \v.rs civil in nature. Thereforc the ck: lircto complainant liled a private complaint under S::tion 190 ar-rcl 2OO ol Cr.P.C ,tn 26.O7.2024 before the learned (lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayalf rLagar arr<l thc same \{ras re le rred to the SHO, P.S. Haya i rnag:rr trnder Section 156 (3) ol Cr.P.C. Therefore, the accr r ed comnritted 3 oflences under Sections 415, 42O,503 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the de-facto complainant and the petitioner entered into a memorandum of understanding on 22.IO.2019. The recitals of the MOU clearly shows that the de-facto complainant agreed to advance altogether an amount of Rs.1.5 crores to the company as a partner for execution of orders on hand. As per Clause A (4) of the MOU, first installment of Rs.SO lakhs to be paid before 30. 10.2019 and the same was repaid. It is lurther submitted that the allegation of criminal intimiclatior-r to return the loan proofs is ex-facie false as the de-facto complainant stated in the complaint that the henchmen ol thc accused threatened him with dire consequences.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that none of the ingredients levelled against tl-re pctitioner would attract and the prima-facie case does not constitute against the petitioner to undergo him for trial ancl crintinuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process ol law. 4

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further ;ubmitted that the ingredients of Section 415 and 42O of IPC do:;'not attract to the facts and circumstances of the case and therr is no criminal intimidation by the petitioner under Section 5Ot of IPC, hence seeks to allou, this criminal petition.

7. Learned counscl for respondent No.3 woul: submit that the petitioner approachcd this Court with un-cleaned rands, where the serious allegations have been made against him ir rd the veracity of the matter at hand can only be elicited through ..1 Le due process of trial; unless and until such a trial is conducted, t -re truth remains obscured, hence, indulgence of this Court is not irarrarted at this B. Taking thc SAMC lines as submitted by le: :ned counsel lor respondent No.3. learned Assistant Public Prosecrr -or would submrt that ncccssarf invcsLigation AS required undo law has been conclucted and accordinglv, charge sheet has bee r laid before thc learnecl trial Crourt. [t is further submitted th it statements ol LWs.l to 4 n,ere rccorded in part-ll case diary anr those u,itnesses are to be examined during course of trial. Therefc,t e, interfcrcnce ol this Court is rlot \\"arrantcrl at this stage and seel. s to dismiss this criminal petition 5

9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel lor respondent No.3 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, it is of the considered opinion that until and unless the trail is conducted, the truth in this case can be elicited. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss this criminal petition. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- AH MED ABDULLA K SISTAN T REG ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 5 6 Pt{,,D1. TheXlVAdditionalMetropolitanMagistrate,CyberabadatHayathNagar, Ranoa ReddY District' ffi 'sH o, ilr;innrg4 Police station, Hay-athnagar' Hyderabad ::: ::1 ;:',s s,m*n:xi;;,il?"iH3lq9 . .,* rwo cooies to PUBLIG PRo+'ctjioR' iiin co'it for the state of i"rrngrn, at HYderabad [OUTI Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:2911012025 CRLP.No.4000 of 2025 1} E SI,1 ( :] Ail 2M (' o \ * a CRIMINAL PEITITION !S DISMISSED. 4