The High Court · 2025

Mr. Khushal Kumar Sukhija Kedia, S/o. Mahesh Kumar Sukhija Kedia, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.45-A, MLA Colony, Road No-12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/AGCUSED No.2 The State 6f Telangana, Represented through Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...RESPONOENT No.1/COMPLAINANT Sri Kamalesh Kumar Gupta, S/o. Ganesh Prasad, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No.'103, B-Block, Tusti Apartment. Sai Nagar, Khanojiguda, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT No.ZDE-FACTO COMPLATNANT 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 call for the records in FIR No.'l't7 oI 202i dated 17.02.2025 registered by P.S. S.R.Nagar and quash the same in so far as the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is concerned. LA. 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including the arrest of the Petitioner/ Accused No.2 herein in relation to FIR No.1 1 7 ol 2O2S daled 17.02.2025 registered by P.S. S.R.Nagar pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. G. ASHOK REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri. M. Vivekananda Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.l and of Sri Mallareddygari Harthika, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: C THE HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE K. SI.TJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6O69 OF 20t21ii /' ORDER: This criminal petition is hled by the petitiorrer -accused No.2 seeking the Court to quash the proceedings agairr;t him in FIR No. i 17 of 2025 of S.R.Nagar Police Station. The olTences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 316 (4) r, od 318 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short tsNSJ.

2. The facts of the case are that the defacto r.:' rmplainant-2'd respondent lodgecl a report before police stating tha' i rr the past five years he is doing the business of car loans. On 15. lO.2O24 he deposited and parked his car bearing No.TS 08 F,X 6629 (Bolero) with Shree Cars, Balkampet for sale and handed ov{rr car keys to its owner Mahesh Ketle and thereafter he did not find lri ; car which he deposited with Shree Cars. Likewise, the fricrid of defacto complainant also deposited and parked his Honda [] ty car bearing No.AP O9 CF 0408 with Shree Cars on 06.01.2012:r for sale and handed over kr:ys of the said car and the same wa:; rrlso not found thereafter. When they asked about the deposited czrr:;, Mahesh Kale did not give proper answer and when they inves;t i .1ated into the matter, they came to know that Mahesh Kale had rrortgaged their 2 cars with one Kushal for the purpose of borrowing money. As such requested the police to take action against the accused and basing on the said complaint, the police registered the case against the accused for the above offences

3. Heard Sri G.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for the l.t respondent_State and Ms. Mallareddygari Harthika, learned counsel appearing for the 2.d respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner herein is a business man living in joint family. In Febnrary, 2024 thre petitioner requested A. I to arrange five old cars for an esLimation of Rs.2O lakhs and petitioner paid Rs. l0 lakhs as an advance to A. 1. However, A. I failed to arrange cars and on repeated requests, on oz .o r .2025, A. I came to the petitioner,s office with two cars and at the time of delivery of said cars, they stood in the name of one T.prabhakar Goud and Chaturbhujh Das. The said cars were settled for Rs.7 Lakhs and A. I promised to return the remaining amount at the time of registration of vehicles. On O4.O2.2O25, in the absence of petitioner, A. l, the 2nd respondent and his friend came to the petitioner,s house and office with S.R.Nagar police constable, caused nuisance and threatened the office staff with dire consequences. 3

5. The further contention of learned counsel for :' e petitioner is that petitioner is no way connected with the offences;. The petitioner purchased cars from A.1 and in fact the cars were not in the name of 2'd respondent or his friend on the date of registratio r of corriplaint and they have not. requested any action against this ;: ::titioner, even though he is arrayed as A.2 by the police. Petitioner f-i ed documents showing that the alleged vehicles are registered in th,: name of 2nd respondent and his friend on O7.O3.2O25 and i .O3.2O25 r.e., subsequent to registration of complaint. As such, th:ry are no way connected with the vehicles on the date of registra,ir n of case and there are no allegations against this petitioner. Hr:r ce, prayed to quash the proceedings against the pelitioner.

6. On the othr:r hand, learned counsel for tht: :r,d respondent would submit tl-rat FIR is not an encyclope d rr and during investigation, the police came to know that the sub'<' rt vehicles are \ \ in the possession of petitioner herein. As the crime p operty is with the petitioner, the police registered the case againr, t the petitioner and prayed to dismiss this petition.

7. Considering the submissions made by the < -rr rnsel and the material on recorri the petitioner herein is arrayed i rs A.2 in FIR, whereas there are no allegations against this p: l tioner in the complaint. filed b1' the 21d respondent. The only a. () lation against 4 C. IS this petitioner even according to the investigating officer is that the crime propergr is with the petitioner herein, whereas, the contention of petitioner herein is that he purchased the same from A. I . Admittedly, A.l doing business in the sale of cars ancl 2nd respondent kept his car with A.l for selling the same. Therefore, none of the offences aueged against the pedtioner are attracted against him. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse ofprocess of law and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal petition allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-A.2 in FIR No.117 of 2025 of S.R.Nagar police Station are hereby quashed. IS Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The station House officer, poiice staiiori s.R.N;g"r, Hyderabad District. 3. One CC to Sri. G. ASHOK REDDY, Advocate tOiUCt. 4 Two CCs to pUBLrc PROSECUTOR, High cturt foi the state of rerangana 5. Two CD Copies at Hyderabad [OUT]. ' TTS/PSL ryL /:. _ 1' tl . \1.-i. , t.tT tfff HIGH COURT DATED: 24lOTl2O25 ORDER CRLP.No.6069 ot 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED Ls b