The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by public Prosecutgr, High Court for the ..1" RespondenUState 2. Thobbi Bhaskar, S/o Vasantha Rao Thobbi Aged about 56 year,'Occ Vice President Projects and services of M/s Weiss Technik lndia Private Limited, R/o Flat No. 101, Sai Sandhya Appartment, Street No.9, Himmayat Nagar, Hyderabad ...2nd RespondenUComplai nant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminat Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash C.C. No. 3777 of 2021, against this Petitioner/ accused No.4, Pending for Disposal on the file of the Xll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally (Hyderabad) arising from F.l.R No. 141 of 2020, set in to Motion by P.S Central crime Station, Hyderabad for the offence Punishable Under the Head of section 403, 409, 420 Rlw sectlon 34 of t.P.C on the information of respondent No.2. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay atl Proceedings in C.C.No.3777 of 2021, against this Petitioner/ accused No 4, including Presence of this Petitioner / accused No.4, Pending for Disposa! on the file of the Xll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally (Hyderabad) arising from F.l.R No. 141 of 2O2O, set in to Motion by P.S Central crime Station, Hyderabad for the offence Punishable Under the Head of section 403, 409, 42O R/w section 34 of l.P.C on the information of respondent No.2. This Petition coming'on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. M RATHAN SINGH, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Mr. TARUN G. REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Gourt made the following: ORDER l THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash tl,e proceedings in C.C.No.3777 of 2O2L, against petitioner, who has been arrayed. as accused No.4 on the lile of the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally (Hyderabad) arising out of FIR No.14 | of 2iO2O on tl'.e file of PS Central Crime Station, Hyderabad for the offence punishable under Sections 4O3, 4Og, 42O read'with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant lodged a report on O L.\O.2O20 at 11:3O hours, stating that he is the Vice President of Projects & Services of Weiss Technik India Private Limited. He has been authorized by the company for filing the present complaint before the Central Crime Station of Hyderabad. Sometime around, Februar5r, 2O2:A, the company was informed about the financial misappropriation and fraud being played on it by some its own employees. Money belonging to tlre company was being siphoned off in order to make wrongful gains. Pursuant to that revelation, the company initiated an internal investigation into these fraudulent transactions. On investigation, it was revealed that a fraud 2 amounting to approximately Rs.1L,44,26,1a4/- was being committed since the year 2OL6. Basing on the above information on the fraud and misappropriation, some of the employees (A1 to A8) were tJle accused persons. Out of which, the petitioner - A4 filed the present Criminal Petition to quash the against him.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the un-oflicial respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, upon receiving the 41-A notice, the petitioner responded personally to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Division-E, CCS, Hyderabad on L2.O2.2O21. However, despite this response, no consideration was given to the petitioner's explanation, and the charge sheet was filed against him without proper application of mind. The charge sheet does not specify the role of the petitioner in the alleged crime, nor does it clarify the connection @a) and Al. Given that the charge sheet between the lacks details about ttre involvement of the petitioner, he argues that pursuing a trial against him would be unjust. As such sought indulgence of the Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3777 of.2O2L against the petitioner -A4. -.. -.J 3

5. Learned counsel for the un-official respondent submits tllat a comprehensive investigation has been carried out by the police, revealing serious allegations of misappropriation amounting to Rs.1 1-45 crore. The evidence, including statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. strongly indicates the involvement of the petitioner in the cr,ime. Furthermore, tl,..e examination of witnesses has already iommenced in the trial, and in light of these developments, the learned counsel argues that judicial interference at this stage is unwarranted. Accordingty sought to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that complete facts, merits and applicable legal provisions will emerge only after a thorough trial. Therefore, the indulgence of this court at the preliminary stage is premature. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the criminal Petition and that the matter be allowed to proceed through the normal course of trial.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petition€r, un- ofliciat respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, tJ:is Court without making any observations on the merits or denierits of the case, is of the opinion that the trial in C.C.No.3777 of 2O2l has already commenced. As such, this I t 4 Court is not inclined to in't:'fere with the ongoing before the triat court. The facts and available materials before the trial court shall be examined during the trial, and appropriate orders will be passed accordingly.

8. In the light of the above, this Court finds no reason to intervene in the trial Proceedings of C.C.No.3777 of 2021, wlriclr are pending before the leamed XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate .1 lrfarnpall], Hyderabad and hereby dismisses the Criminat Petition. However, as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appearance of the petitioner shall be dispensed with. The petitioner is required to appear before the trial court as and when directed. The petitioner shall frle the necessary affrdavit, failure to do so, the interim relief granted by this Court will be vacated. g. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if SO'. P. CH, NAGABHUSHAMBA PUTY REGISTRAR ,,TRUE COPY" I OFFTCER To,

1. The Xll - Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House fficer, CCS, DD, Hyderabad police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to Mr. M RATHAN S|NGH, Advocate [OpUCl 5. One CC to Mr. TARUN G.REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 6. T!r/o CD Copies ry. i i I i, I I t HIGH COURT 1 tPp CRLP.No.4800 of 2021 {lti: SIz* o\t' ( fi3 tttffi C) tt', + ,f i.^.-./...... ..;1.': ' The Criminal petition is Dismissed. t0