Limited v. State of IJtlar Pradeshl His contention is that both the offences under Sections

The State of Telangana, through SHO, PS Sanatnagar,Cyberabad, rep. by its Public Prosecutor. High Court of Telangana Trilok Agarwal, S/o. Phool Chand Agarwal, Occ Business, Director of IVI/s. Simpleilspat Udyog Pvt Ltd, H.No 1-18219 and '10, Pipe Line Road, Fateh Nagar, Hyderabad ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI JITHENOER RAO VEERAMALLA, ADOITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N SHYAM CHANORA SEKHAR The Court made the following: ORDER " _+:' rFf t THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DI: /l EADA CRIMINAL REV ISION CASE No.274 OF 2 )2s ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set :;ide the order dated 27.01 .2025 in Crl.M.P.No.2289 of 2O2t in _ C.No.10i6 of 20'16 passed by the lAdditional Junior Civil ludge-cum-Xll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class. l/er :hal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally (for short "trial Court")

2. The case of the petitioners is that they were far ng allegations under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC and that 1 rey have filed Crl.ttil.P.No.2289 oI 2021 before the trial Court unct r Section 239 Cr.P.C. praying to discharge them from the charges f: offences and the same was dismissed by the 'the aforesaid 'ial Coud cn

27.01 .2025. Against the said orders, the present pet :ion is filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the said orders. 3 Heard the submissions of Sri Sreenivasa lao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.Cir ndra Sekhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. The learned petitioners counsel has subnr ted that the petitioners are facing allegations that tirey purchase(l steel from the ) de facto complainant and have not paid the amount and they have cheated the company. He further submitted that they had two decades of transaction with the de facto complainant and that they never committed any default intentionally and that the accused company sustained losses and went into liquidation and an official liquidator is also appointed. He further submitted that they have also produced ledger books of running transaction before the official liquidator and that they have never entertained any criminal intention to commit any such offence, he therefore prayed to discharge the petitioners as the said offences do not stand against the petitioners. He further argued that the Apex Court has time and.again reiterated that the allegations under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC cannot go together but still the petitioners are facing allegations under both the sections and further they never threatened lhe de facto complainant to attract the offence under Section 506 of lPC, therefore, prayed to discharge the petitioners by setting aside the orders passed by the trial Court. 5- The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the complaint discloses that from 2009 the petitioners were irregular in payment, there are several allegations leveled in the complaint and that at present they are due to an extent of Rs.74,89,9031, ffiF 3 which is a huge amount. The petitioners have evadt 1 the payment after receiving the material by promising them that the I would collect the amounts from the customers and they wc t d pay them. Therefore, lhe de facto complainant has lodged the complaint and that the matter should be subjected for trial to unrave the truth. He further submitted that the statement of a third party r so is recorded by the prosecution which supports the allegation nr rde by the de faclo complainant. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss th : petition.

6. Perused the record. 7 . The previous transaction between the de far; r complainant and the accused are admitted. The only contentio- raised by the petitioner is that he never entertained any dishon: ;t intention to cheat the de facto complainant. Since the petitiorr is filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C, the said provision is extracted hrt eunder for the sake of reference: "239. When accused shall be discharged.-lf, upor the police report and the documents sent with it under and making such examination, if any, of the accLl Magiskate thinks necessary and after giving the prosec l accused an opportunity of being heard, the l/agistrate rx charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall c r accused, and record his reasons for so doing.', ;onsidering ection 173 3d as the on and the lsiders the charge the 1 a'

8. While dealing with an application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., the trial Court is not required to conduct a detailed enquiry into the allegations or the evidentiary aspects. The Court must only consider whether there exists a prima facie case to proceed, othenruise the Court can discharge the accused. ln the present case, there are prima facie grounds alleged by the de faclo complainant against the petitioners herein

9. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of IJtlar Pradeshl . His contention is that both the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC cannot go together. ln'the said case, it was held that in the case of cheating dishonesf intention starts with the very inception of the transaction and that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine one. ln case of cheating, the intention of the accused at the time of inducement should be looked into and that in case of ciminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the propefty and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. ' (2024) to scc 690 a?F@z 10, Whether the allegations attract the offences unc :r Section 406 or 420 IPC is a matter that falls for consideration aft: a full-fledged trial. Since there is pima facie material pointing ou1 he allegations against the petitioners herein, the trial Court has ri; rfly dismissed the petition under Section 239 of Cr P.C. and it does ,ot call for any interference. Therefore the same is upheld and it ir held that the petition lacks merits. Hence, the same is liable to be c smissed. 11 . In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disrr ssed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shali stand closed SD/. A.PRATHIMA IIi PUTY REGISTRAR i( SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The XXIV Metropolitan l\4agistrate, Kukatpally at tVliyapur Cyberabad 2. The Station House Officer, Sanathnagar police Staiion. ( yberabad 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State : Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, Advocate [OpU( ] ! 9n" CC to Sri N Shyam Chandra Sekhar, Advocate [OF I C] 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] ABK/PS]- HIGH COURT DATED: 03/09/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.274 ol 2025 DISMISSING OF THE CRLRC q $ riE S rffi ?ru rr: Sl * I :S;F'I\T ,::o