The High Court · 2025

2. Sri. Nidigonda Naresh, S/o. N. Anjaiah, Aged about. Qp R/o. PloI No. 43. Road No. 1'1 , Dwarakamani Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hanga Reddy District, Telangana. yrs,.oc.c Busine^ss, ...ResPondenUComPlainants 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 quash the proceedings in FIR in cr.No.286/2025 on the file of Vanasthalipuiam police Station for the alleged offences under Sec. 316(2), 318(4), 351(2),352 r/w 3(5) BNS 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 stay all further proceedings in cr.No-286/2025 on the file of Vanasthalipuram police Station for the alleged offences under Sec 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 35i riw 3(5) BNS, inctuding arrest of the petitioners, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing 1e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurr:nts of Sri PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO, Advocate for the Petitione r ; and Sri Surepalli Prashanth, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Fl spondent No, '1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUIVIAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7293 0F 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ,BNSS,) by petitioners/accused Nos. i and 2 to quash the proceedings against them in Cr.No.2B6 of 2025 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station. Ttre offences alleged against petitioners are under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) and 352 read with 3(5) of the Bha-ratiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ,BNSJ.

2. I{eard Mr. Parsa Ananth Nagesu,ar Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and IVIr. Surcpalii prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l State There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the raaterial on record

3. A merno is filcd by learned counsel for petitioners stating that personal notice was taken out on respondent No.2 through Registerecl Post Acknowledgement Due (RpAD) and notice rvas sent to the same address mentioned in the complaint dated 26.02.2025. The remarks of the posial department states that "no such person in tl-re address',. 2 J.{K, J CRLP l29l 202i -)

4. On basrs of the complaint filed by resporr lent No.2lde facto complainalt, an FIR bearing No 286 ol 2025, dated 26.02.2025, came to be registered in Vanasthat puram Police Station, Rachakonda District, under Sections 3 t6(2), 318(4), 351(2) and 352 read with 3(5) of BNS' It is the specific case of respondent i'l 5. reno\ration of his house at Vanasthalipurarr , amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to petitioners/ accu ; 2 . A cheque rvas issued by petitioner No. 1 7 I (Josef Kumar) for the amount and that a pronr by petitioners/ accused Nos.l ald 2 to responrl the-r, would complete all the furniture wor ['' mon th. It is further stated that even af' t petitioners/ accused Nos.l and 2 did.not comp I >.2 that, for he paid an rd Nos. 1 and ccused No.1 se was made :nt No.2 t1-rat within one r a month, :ie the work. That when respondent No.2 asked petitioners rr r to r.vhy they did nct complete the rvork, they abused respcr dent No.2 in filth], languzrge and threatened him. That, rr'1 h a criminal intent, petitioners took respondent No.2's mone y, hence, the complaint.

6. Learned counscl for petitior-rers / accuse c Nos.1 and 2 submitte d that, on perttsal of the complaint, t - : ingredients J .IAK. J CRLP i293 2025 of the offences are not rnacie out and there are no specific allegations, no date on cheque is mentioned that is issued by petitioners. That except stating thaLt work is related to lurniture at his residence, there are no details of the work to be carried out. The date, time and month of threatening and abusing u.f respondent No.2 in filthy language, is not forthcoming in the compiaint. That the complaint is falsely lodged by respondent No.2 only to harass petitioners.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that it is a fit case for trial ald no interference is necessitated as there is a breach of contract, cheating and breach of trust are made out.

8. Heard learned counsels, perused the record, considered the submissions g. A perusal of complair-rt does not indicate any details. It is the case of respondent No.2 that, for renovation of his house, an arnount of Rs.25,00,0O0/- was given to petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. However, the complarnt does not mention on which date the amount r'l'as given and whether the amount was paid in cash or arlv other mod e, 4 JAK, J CRLP 7291 2025 -\ q,hether on one occasion or multiple occasrc t s is also not mentioned. The complaint only reflects that a'r trk order was given lo petitioners by respondent No.2 for re r lvation of his house. That, both petitioners/ acc used Nos.l er d 2 promised to complete the furniture work r.vithin one m r rth. The date and month on which the promise was made t: complete the furniture work is not mentioned. On one hand ,he complaint speaks about renovation work and also ltates about furniture work. It is observed from the compl r nt that when respondent No.2 sought for completion of wc r <, petitioners abused him in filthy language and threatened I im. There are no details of the date when petitioners abused and threatened respondent No.2. It is a gene t rl statement '*,ithout details or specifics. No ingredients <,1 offences made out from the contents of the complaint

10. Section 316(2) of BNS reads as follows "Whoe ver, commils criminal breach (,1 rrust shall bc punished rvith imprisonment of :ither dcscriptron for a term rvhich may exiend 1) fivc years, or lr,ith fine, or with both." 1 1 . Section 318(a) of BNS reads as follows: "V./hoer.er cheats and thereby dishr restiy inciuces the person deceived to deliver any p', perty f ]AL. J itRLI' 7291 20:i to any pcrson, or ro make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being corrverteci into a valuable security, strall bc punished rvith imprisonment of either description for a term ',r,hich ntay cx[end to scven ycars, and shall also be liable to fine."

12. Section 35 1 (2) of BNS leacls as follows: "Whcever ccmrni ts thc offence of criminal intimidation shall be punishcd ',vith imprisonment of either description fo-,: a term which may cxtend to two years, cr with fine, or $,ith both."

13. Section 352 of BNS reads as follolvs: "Whoever intentionally insults in any manner, and thereby gir.es provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to comrnit any other offence, shall be punished with .imprisonn-rent of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or rvith both."

14. It is trite law that to artract an offence under the Sections charged/levelled, the ingredients of such offences have to be made out. The Hon'ble Apex Court io Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Others a. Sta,te of Uttar prqdesh and Anotherr held that the offence of cheating and breach of trust are not twins and they do not go together and cannot co-exist. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that, from ' izttz+1 t0 sc'c' oo0 6 Jr\R..I ( ttLP 7-t9i 202i inception, he r,r'as cheated, nor it is the ca;e of respondent No.2 that a part of work is done a,d part o work is reft out. No details are forthcoming, except statin5 that an amount has been paicJ and work is not completed.

15. It is common knorvledge that in casu r.vork, it is the own:r who pays the monel f work to the contractor. But surprisingly, in t it is sterted b.r.' responclent No.2 that he pai<l and a cheque u,as issued by petitioners/z amount. No contractor empioyed to renovalr chequc to the orvner t,ho seeks renovation may, cheque number or the bank on which i. mentioned in the complaint. In the facts altt of the case, it can be ii-rferrecl that the com,r ingredients lor making out the offences, l: against petitioners/ accused Nos.1 and 2. ll, made out, as the complaint is bereft of ingredients (pime -facie)at least to attract the I s of renovation rr completion of re present case, Rs.25,0O,000/- :cused for the a work gives a Be tl-rat as it .s drawn is not circumstances aint lacks the ,e11ed/ charged , offences are the essentia-l fences.

16. For reasons zrforesaid, thrs Court is of tlr, opinion that proceedi.gs ag:rinst pe titioners/accused Nos I and 2 in Cr.No.2B6 of 2025 of Vait asth:tlip uram pol r e Station, if : ---;!i+__- ; ../.' 7 ]AK. J Cf.l-P 7291 lo:i allorned to continue, it ri,or.rid ;611r-runt to r.n abuse of process of iaw ant-i the proceeciings ale Iiabie io -ue quasheci and are hereby quashed 17 . Accordingly, the criniinal petiticn ',s allorved Miscelianeous applications penciing, if any, shali stand closed. To, S P. PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REgISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 TheVllAdditionalMetropolitainMagistrateCyberabadatHayathnagar' Ranga ReddY. The Station House officer, Vanasthallpuram Police Station, Rachakonda One CC to SRI PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO Advocate IOPUCI Two CCs to Public Prose-cxtor' high court for the state of telangana at HVJeirUaO Advocate [OUT] 2 3 4

5. Two CD CoPies ISP/gh I HIGH COURT DATED:31 t}tt2OZs ORDER CRLP.No.7293 ot ZO2S ,/. ). [ 6 I;; ]ffi ' ..:u ALLOWING THE CRLP g ..I 1\