The High Court · 2025

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

2. Sri Gopal Agarwal, S/o.Late BindrabanAgarwal, Occ. Business, Aged 61 years,'R/o. Vitta.t{o.9, Lanco Hanging Gaidens Manikonda, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 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 quash the proceedings against the petitioners/ accused no.1 and 5 in b.C.tto.tgAzy2O21 on the file of the learned Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 oI 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 all further proceedings, including appearance of the petitioners in b.C.tto. 1387it2021 on the file of the learned Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, NampallY, HYderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri SHREEYAS REDDY, representing M/S INDUS LAw FIRM, Advocate for the Petitioners and sRl ERIGI GANESFI, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No 1 and of SRI RAVI KIRAN RAO, learned Senior counsel representing lVL.s LAW FtRM, Advocat,: ror tfre Respond;;;;; ; """ The Court made the following: ORDER PILLIX "t, THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.\/. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.5336 oF 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos.l and 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against tl-rem in C.C.No.l38Tlof2o2lonthefileofthelearnedXIIAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad (for short, "the triai Court") for the offences punishable under Sections 406' 42O r lw Section 34 of I.P.C.

2. Heard Mr.Shreeyas Reddy, learned counsel representing M/s..lndus Law Firm, counsel for the petitioners, Mr'E'Ganesh' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State and Mr'Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel representingMs.PillixLawFirnr,counselforunofficialrespondent No.2. Perused the record compiaint

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/complainant lodged a against petitioners/ accused Nos' 1 and 5 for the offences of Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust by alleging that on the pretext of saie of plots at NRI First City, Jalpally Village, RR District, they collected an amount of Rs.84,00,OOO/- fraudulently and failed to regis.ter 2 '- the plots on thr:rr names. Basing on the saicl facts the prr:sent case is registererl against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 5 for the offences punishable under Sections.4o6, 42O r./w Sectio;r 34 of I.P.C

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint prima -facie does not disclose any criminal activity and the petitioners ar.e lalsely charged for the offence under Sect.ion 42O of I.p.C. .{e further states that the ingredients of inducement, prorrrr se and dishonest intention which are stne (lua non for the offence of Cheating are lacking in the case on hand. He states that respondent No.2 is giving the colour of criminality to a contractuai dispute between the parties and foistecl the fa. se case against lhe prs1i1i66€,rs. Therelore. relying on the decisioes passed by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Hriday Ranjan pras:rd Vs. State of Biharl, Vineet Kumar and Others Vs. State of Uttar pradesh ancl another2, Samir Sahay Vs. State of Utt:rr Pradesh3, Hasmukhlal D. Vora and another Vs. The State of (_ I 1zooo1 + scc tr,s ,2017 (13) SCC 36S r 2017 ArR (sc) s327 -) Tamil Nadua and Chanchalpati Das Vs' The State of West Bengal and anothers he seeks to allow this Criminal Petition'

5.LearnedcounselforrespondentNo.2,byfilingcounter affidavit, states that another F'l'R'No' 155 of 2O2O dated 2t.lO.2O2O was registered against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Section 42O of I'P'C' and upon thorough investigation the same is closed as "civil-in-nature"; that respondent No.2 approached NCLT, Bangalore under the provisions of lnsolvencY and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and vide order dated 09.O9.2O2O in C'P (lB)No '54 lBBl2O2O the said NCLT had dismissed the matter for non-prosecution' Therefore' relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others6' he states that this Court is not constrained to conduct a mini trial' at the stage of quashing and seeks to dismiss this Criminal Petition'

6. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel, on careful scrutiny of the entire material available on record and relying on the decision passed by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited I l 1 2022 Live Law (sc) 1033 3 Criminal Appeal No.1592 oI2023 (4 SLP (Crt ) No'6684 of20I7 6 1992 SCC (Crr, 424) + .- Vs. State of Maharashtra and Othersz, this Court is o I the opinion that the matter requires trial and only upon conclusicn of a full-fledged trial the truth comes to light. Therefore, this c)ourt is not inciined 1.o entertain the Criminal petition, at this sr_age. However, the appearance of the petitioners is dispensed with in c'c'No'13871 0r 202r on the file of the learned XII Additicnar Chief MetropoliLan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad when represented b1, their counsel on record. The appearance of the petitioners is dispensed with subject to fiiing an affidavit by the petitioners statir-rg that in their absence, the proceedings conducted by their counsel will not be disputed by. them in irny manner. However, the petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate as and when their presence is required. In the even! of failure of the petitioners to appear u,hen the Court directs, this order dispensing v.,ith their appearance stands cancclred.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal petition iS disposed of. Miscellaneous petiti _ ___ _ "1", 7(z ozt) 7S 5 upreae Cou"L Cases pending if any, shall stand closed SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAIT RAo D PUTY REGISTRAR f \ i //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFf:ICER To,

1. The XII Additionat Chief Metropotitan t\/agistrate at Nampaily, Hyderabac 2. The. Station House Officer, Team _lX, CCS, DD a. One CC to SRt M/{} TNDUS LAW FtRM Advocate [OpUC] .* = \

4. One CC to SRt IM/s. ptLLtX LAW FIRM Ad\iocate tOpUCl 5. Two ccs to PUBLIG PROSECUTOR, High court for the State of rerangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. .Two CD Copies GR/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 'U02t2OZs ,/ \ 10 [[i 20fr ORDER CRLP.No.5336 of 2023 t t I I DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION l0 lo 04