The High Court · 2025

I!,"_ 9lqt" of Telangana, Represented by the public prosecutor High Court of lelangana. [1av1lg1rata Siva Nikhit, S/O Nq1 Known Aged about major, occ_ Business I1?.,:9!l!q1r,paily. Hyderabad There is no absotute retdtionship between pertlroner and defacto complaimant Petition under section 529 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to quash FIR sB4lzo2s dared 0s10412025 pending on the file of ps Madhapur, Cyberabad. ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under section 529 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 investigation, including arrest of the petitioner in FIR 58412025 dated 05to412o25 pending on the fite of ps firladhapur, cyberabad. l -l This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. s NAGESH REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. D.ARUN KUMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and sri AVINASH DESAI, Advocate for the ResPondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5335 of 2o.25 ORDER: This Criminal Petitiory'( filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No.1 in Crime No.584 of 2025 of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5) and.318(a) of BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, M/s Accpre Software, alleges that they formed a partnership with M/s Accpre Engineering and M/s Sri Sai to import and trade clean shredded tyre wire steel. As per the arrangement, M/s Accpre Software would fund the transactions, while M/s Sri Sai would act as the importing agency. However, disputes arose among the partners, and the accused, Mr. Rahul Kasireddy, Mr. R. Sai Theja, and Mr. Vartikati Uma Maheswar, allegedly conspired to misappropriate the goods and funds. Despite knowing that M/s Sri Sai held funds received from M/s Accpre Software, the accused sent a fabricated email claiming false dues. When warned not to 2 sKs'J Crl.P.l{o,5335 of 2o25 l interfere with the orders, the accused proceeded to take possession of consignments and negotiated their sale to third parties, constituting criminal breach of trust' The complainant has full documentation and is prepared to produce it for investigation, and thus, requests appropriate lega1 action against the accused.

3. Heard Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D' Arun Kumar' learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the responden[ - State and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - De facto complainant'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned complaint does not disclose arly cognizable offence' particularly under Sections 316(5) and 318(4) of the BNS and that the complaint reveals a business arrangement between the parties, u'hich has been in operation since 2O2 1 , with hundreds of successful transactions. The dispute arose due to internal disagreements in the year 2024, and the criminal proceedings are a17 attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal offence to gain leverage in business dealings' He 3 SKS,J Crl.P.I{o.5335 of 2025 further submitted that with regard to Section 3lS(a) of BNS, the offence of cheating requires a fraudulent intention from the inception of the transaction, which is absent in this case. The complainant's admission of a long_standing business relationship with successful transactions precludes the offence of cheating.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that regarding Section 3 16 (5) BNS, there is no entrustment of dominion over the property of the complainant by the petitioner. The invoices stand in the name of the petitioner, and the goods are being held in custody until outstanding dues are cleared, which is a normal business practice. The addition of this provision is an attempt to attract a l O_year punishable offence despite the matter being civil in nature. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2, respectiveiy, opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature, which require trial. \ 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5335 of 2025 l Therefore, at this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioner does not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminai Petition. 7 . Upon consideration of the submissions made and a perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings in Crime No.584 of 2025, contending that the complaint stems from a purely civil dispute arising out of a long-standing business arrangement between the complainant, M/s Accpre Software, and M/s Sri Sai Industries for the import and ftade of clean shredded tyre wire steel, which had resulted in several successful transactions between 2O2l and2024.

8. According to the petitioner, the present dispute arose due to internal disagreements and non-payment of dues, and the complaint seeks to criminalize what is essentially a contractual disagreement. However, on a plain reading of the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner, along with others, dishonestly misappropriated goods that were funded by the complainant, fabricated emails to raise false claims, and attempted to dispose of the goods without consent, thereby attracting offences under Sections 316(5) and 3i8(4) of BNS. 5 SKS,J Cil-P.trto.5335 of 2O25

9. The ingredients of Section 3 16(5) require entrustment of property, dishonest misappropriation, and breach of legal or contractual duty, which the complainant asserts through .allegations of the petitioner acting as an import facilitator entrusted with goods lunded by the complainant. Though the petitioner argues that there was no entrustment as the goods were invoiced in his name and held due to unpaid charges, this defence involves factual controversies including the nature of the relationship, whether the goods were held in a hduciary capacit5r, and whether the withholding of delivery was justified.

10. Similarly, the offence under Section 318(a) hinges on fraudulent intent from inception, which the petitioner denies by pointing to the history of successful dealings; yet, the complaint alleges that the petitioner fabricated documents and acted with dishonest intent, and these issues too require investigation and cannot be pre-judged.

11. It is well settled that powers under Section 482 Cr.p.C. I are to be exercised sparingly and cannot be invoked to quash proceedings where the allegations, taken at face value, disclose a pima facie offence and where the matter involves ( ( \ h:', !' crl-P.ro.5335 0f 2025 disputed questions of fact. In the present case, while the parties do not dispute the existence of a business relationship' the nature of the alleged misappropriation, the question of entrustment, and the petitioner's intent all require factuai determination and evidence, which lie outside the scope of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr'P'C'

12. At this preliminary stage, the complaint cannot be said to be inherently improbable or an abuse of process, and the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the dispute has civil overtones. Therefore, this Court does not hnd any merit in the criminai petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed' 1a Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed SD/- A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,="r,oJlo*'i,"r* To, b

1. The X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Kukatpally. 2. The Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4. One CC to Mr. S NAGESH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Mr. Avinash Desai, Advocate. [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies I HIGH COURT DATED: 2610612025 ORDER i dL si AI€ 9c .Li :/ '' 0[ AUs ?$6 CRLP.No.5335 ot 2025 -rl 7_ a) ^ .t' Accordingly, this Griminal Petition is Dismissed. @44 fu-