The High Court · 2025

The. State of Telangana, Rep. by public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...Respondent 2 Sri Yekula Bhoopal Reddy, -SJo._y.pedda Malla Reddy, Aged 44 years, Occ. - -- Business, R/o H. No. 1 -B-3 i22t2, Sury anagar, Cn ir<f<lOp'Jf f Vl UyOerjoao' Sri. Yekula Madhusudhan Red^dy,-SJo _y.pedda Malla Reddy, Aged 43 years, occ. Business, R/o. H.No.1-8-3t:iztz,suryaiigai, cniiiaapdrrvir_rvo"rjorj.' 3 ...Respondents Petition under section 482 of cr.p .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar-pelition, the Higt, cou.t ;ly be pleased to quash c.c.No.131 of 2o1s pending on the file of Xll-Aadttionat Cnier Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitionersi Accused No.9 and .r 3, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 492 of cr.p .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal-pelition, the High court;;y-;" pleased to extend the interim order dated 23toz l2o1g passed in crl.p.No.426'6 of 20'19 until further orders. ;: .'. l.A. NO: 1 2019 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 all further proceedings in C.C.No.131 oI 2015 pending on the file of Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the Petitioners/Accused No 9 and 13, including the appearance of the Petitioners/ Accused No.9 and 13 before the Trial Court till the disposal of the main petition, in the interest of justice This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Subash, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 The Court made the following: ORDER - - ="""P1:t---- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.4266 OF 2019 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-9 arrd A-13 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 131 of 2015, on the frle of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad' The petitioners herein are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120(8), 42O, 406, 347, 365, 368 & IOO of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.

3. Briefly, the case of the respondents/defacto- complainants is that they have been traders of chilly business at Guntur since 1O years with turnover of Rs.25 crores' While so, they suffered losses in business. At that point of time, accused. Nos.1 to 3 came into contact with the defacto complainants and assured them that they would clear their issues with creditors. Accordingly, they induced defacto complainants to come to Secunderabad along with family and 2 with available cash, gold etc. Believing them, the complainalts went to Secunderabad on 25.02.2013 along with available cash of Rs.1,70,OO,OOO/-, gold ornaments worth of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, silver ornaments and other precious stones, articles, etc. A- 1 to A-3 took them to an unknown location and relieved them of the cash, gold etc, under the guise of keeping them secure. Later, A-1 to A-3 kept shifting defacto complainants from one place to another. During March 2013, A-1 to A-3 filed insolvency petition vide IPSR.No.3672 of 2013. Suspecting the intention of A-1 to A-3, when defacto complainants demanded them for return of their money, gold and silver ornaments, etc, they threatened them of danger from creditors and kept them in a farm house at Shadnagar. Later, defacto complainants without knowledge of A-1 to A-3, escaped from the said place. A-2 gave hand loans to the tune of Rs.8O lakhs to the millers at Miryalaguda through his father A-9. A-1 started constructing a house at L.B.Nagar with ill- gotten money.

4. Thereafter, A-10, A-11 along with defacto complainants went to Guntur and entered into an MOU on 16.07.2013 with chilli merchants association represented by A-4 stating that 3 they will clear the loans by disposing remaining properties. On 2O.O7.2O13, defacto complainants gave special GpA in favour of A-5 in respect of 5 properties belonging to them. A-6 and A-7 are the witnesses to the said document.

5. The allegation against the petitioners/A_9 and A_13 herein is that they gave hand loans from ill gotten monov received from A-2, on behalf of A_2.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that even according to the complainants, initially Crime No.79 of 2Ol3 was filed before Market police Station on the basis of compliant given by the complainants. The said crime was subject matter of Crl.p.No.5461 of 2013 and Crl.P.No.6O33 of 2013. The respondents/complainants and the A-1 to A-3 approached this Court and filed compromise application. .On the basis of compromise, this Court by order dated 12.03.2013 quashed the proceedings against A_1 to A_3. 7. Again 7 months after the proceedings were quashed, the present complaint was filed by the respondents with CCS, DD, Hyderabad on 10.10.2014, which was registered as Crime No.257 of 2014. I I I If: 4

8. In the charge sheet filed, it is alleged that the defacto complainants were forced to compromise before the High Court and they were not inclined to do so. For the said reason, the compromise entered into in Cr.No.79 of 2Ol3 which was quashed has no bearing and accordingly, police concluded investigation and filed charge sheet.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Chattigarh & Anrr, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where there was an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and quashed the proceedings on merits.

10. It is admitted fact that the complainants approached this Court and Iiled affidavit, pursuant to which proceedings were quashed in Cr.No.79 of 2013. If at all there was any grievance that they were forced to compromise the case, they ought to have approached this Court for setting aside the orders passed in Crl.P.Nos.5461 & 6033 of 2013, on the grounds of force, or coercion or undue influence or fraud. Neither the complainants have taken steps to set aside the orders passed ' crl.l.No.775 of 20l-, 5 in the above criminal petitions nor have they appealed before the Hontrte Supreme Court questioning the orders passed by this Court. 1 1. Having approached this Court and giving consent for quashing the proceedings, the complainants cannot again lile a sepa_rate complaint on the very same allegations. The said procedure adopted by the complainants cannot be accepted and consequent investigation by the police on the ground that they were defrauded/forced to compromise before this Court cannot be made a ground to pursue investigation. Though a second complaint is not barred, on the same set of facts under peculiar circumstances of the given case, however, no steps were taken to either review the order of quashing the initial crime or questioning before the Supreme Court. The complainants have chosen a different police station in Hyderabad itself to lodge the second complaint.

12. Further, on facts also it is admitted that petitioners herein were given money by A-2 to be passed on as hand loan to other persons. Petitioners were arrayed on the basis of the confession of A-2. Even according to the complainants, petitioners are known to them and complaint was filed only I I , I 6 against A-1 to A-3. The said allegation of petitioners taking money from A-2 at A-2,s instance and giving loans will not attract any of the offences alleged under Sections 12O(B), 42O, 406,347,365, 368 & 109 of IpC. The petitioners have neither abetted nor entered into a conspiracy with A- I to A_3 to cheat the complainants in the present facts.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No. 131 of 2015 against the petitioners herein. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD I ASSTSTANT REGTSTRAR I //TRUE COPY// _--,_ SI: CTION OFFICER i I I I i \ To,

1. The Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magisirate, Hyderabad 2. The station House offic_er,CCS Oo poticJ Stati;;, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Corrt fo."inu State of Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri p Subash, Advocate tOpUCI 5 Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) ADK/PSL 4y l.,l:; SfH1 rA I6 Qt 2 4 r,An 2025 z a ^ ( ( t l I HIGH COURI" DATED:0510212025 ORDER CRLP.No.4266 of 2019 ALLOWING TI.IE CRLP W,