The High Court · 2025

Addrtional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir. LA NO 1 of 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in CC No. 834 of 20086, on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Mag rstrate. Between Jlffi !* s: I3T,ti,:x' l:?,' Illrgwh the pubtic pr*."r',3a0'i Bhuvanagiri District High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad) qy t nspecto r or po I ice . Petitioner/Respondent No.2 And 1 . The State of Telangana, .rep., by lnspector of police I ice s ia r ion' y joi o li e r,-,;ia;Ai".i biJi[t B ib inasa r po (Through the public prosecuror, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad) 2 9gl Fgngg. Bao Name (Retd), S/o late N V Naidu, ag€;O aOout 76 vears u.natrman ald Managing Director o.f rvr/s Narne Estates pvt Ltd 1 Gunrock Enclave. Secunderabad Telangana 500 OOd Gokul Narne, S/o Col Ranoa Rao Na 1999 qb9u_t 45 years, Director of M/s Pvt Ltd 1 Gunrock Enclave. Secunderabad Telangana 500 0Og me (Retd) (A2) Narne Estates 3 t.A. NO.2 of 2O20 Respondent-2/petitioner No 1&2 petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to pass order of vacating the interim orders of stay dt. 10-10 201g in Crl.P No 6395 of 2019. I.A. NO 1of2024 Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal p€tition, the High Court may be preased to condone the deray of 7gg days in firing the LR petition to bring the LRs of deceased 2nd respondenu complainant namely Thota Balwantha Rao in the above Crl. petition No. 6395 of 2O19 LA. NO 2 of 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to bring the proposed Respondent No.3 as Respondent No_3 being the LR of Respondent No 2 in CRLP No-6395 of intertocutory applications, in the rnterest of lustice' 2019 including in all I.A. NO: 3 ot 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P'C praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition'theHighCourtmay be pleased to receive additional documents on record ' which are iust and necessary for the adiudication of the above Criminal Revision Petition in the interest of iustice and to pass such other order or orders as the Court deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of arguments of sri Vivekanand ReddY' Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the M. Piabhakar, Advocate for the Petitioners and the trilr' M Additional Public Prosecutor' behalf of the Respondent No 1 The Court made the following. ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURINDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.6395 0F 2019 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed under Secti on 4g2 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioners/accused Nos. l, and 2, to quash the charge-sheer in C.C.No.B34 of 2006, on the hle of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bongir.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 _ State.

3. It is informed that accused No. I has died. Accordingly, this petition is heard only against accused No.2/petitioner No.2.

4. The crime was registered in the year 2O05. In the complaint filed by the respondent No.2, it is alleged that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land admeasuring Acs.2O-35 guntas in Survey Nos.492 and 496 of Bibinagar Village, yadadri Bhavanagiri District. Accused Nos.l and 2 attempted to sell a- part of the land by creating a ") GPA through one of their emplovees, i.e., accused No'3' Accused No.3 is not before this Court.

5. While the crime was pending, Criminal Petition No'2504 of 2OO5 was filed questioning the investigation, artd the same was dismissed. Again, after filing the chargesheet, the petitioners preferred Criminal Petition No. 13797 of 2O 1 I , and the same was disposed of, as the learned counsel for the petitioners did not press for the main prayer and confined his argument only to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court. In the Court below' a discharge application n'as filed by the petitioners herein, and the same was dismissed. The prosecutioll against the petitioners is for the offences under Sections 465, 168,47I' 175, 177,2O1,2O4, and,42O read r'vith 511, 34, and 1O9 of I.P.C

6. Questioning the said discharge applicatlon, Crimina-l Revision Case No. 1232 of 2O 14 rvas filed belore this Court' This Court, uide order dated 16.07.2O 14, partl1' allowed the petition, holcling that insofar as the a.dditional charges framed for the offences punishable under Sections 175 atd 177 of IPC are concerned, the same could not be sustained and set J aside the order to that extent, while maintaining the prosecution under other provisions of IPC

7. The present criminal petition is filed after the dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case No.1232 of 2OI4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit .that several criminal petitions can be maintained, though the earlier petitions r,r,ere dismissed.

8. Learned counsel lor the petitioners would further submit that the point not urged earlier is that the company was not made an accused, and in such a case, the question of prosecuting the petitioners/ accused Nos. I ald 2 does not arlse.

9. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of Suslril Sethi and another u. State of Arunachal Pra.desht, wherein several allegations were made against the company, and for the reason that the company was not made an accused, and it was held that the prosecution cannot be initiated against the Managing Directors/ Directors. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: ' 1zo:oy I scc z+o 4 "8.2. It is also required to be noted. that the allegations can be said to be against the companA. The compang has not been ntade a pattg.The allegations are resticted to the Director and the Director of the Managing compana respectiuelg. There are no specific ollegations against the Managing Director or euett the Director. There ore no allegations to constitute the uicaious liabilitg. In the case of Maksud Saiued u. State of Guiarat (2008) 5 SCC 668. iI is obserued and held by this Court that the penal code does not contain ang prouision for attaching uicorious liability on th.e part of the Managling Director or the Directors of the company whert the the compang. It is further obserued accused is and held that the uicarious liability of the- Director and l)irector uoultl arise Managing prouided ang prouision exjsts in that behalf ut the statute. It is further obserued that stetute indisputablg must contein prouisiort ftxing such uicarious liabtlities. It is fufther obseruetl that eueru for the said purpose, it is obligatory otr the part of the amplainant to make requlsite allegations which utould attract the protislons constituting uicarious liability. In the present ccrse, there are no such specific allegations against the appellants being Managing Director or the Director of the companA respectiuely. [Jncler the ciratmstances also, the impugned ciminal ) proceed.ings are required to be quasled and. set dside.:"

10. It was held in the case of Sushil Sethi (supra),,,,.that when specific allegations were made against the company.an{ the company was not made a party, the prosecution of the persons responsible for the company czrnnot be initiated. ll. The facts in the present case are different. The allegations against these pctitioners are that accused No.3 fabricated documents by appending his signature as the de facto complainan t. On the basis of the said fabricated document, the rights over a certain extent of land were ( ( ( t transferred, and the document on the basis of which ihe transfer of land took place is admittedly a fabricated document. The proceedings before the Civil Court is of no significance in the present facts of the case. A transactioix.ban give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings. Sincb .,jt is alleged that the GPA in favour of the petitioners was fabricated, the question of making the company a party to the complaint does not arise. There are no allegations made against the company. However, specilic allegations are leveled against the petitioners. ,/ 6

12. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the learned counsel lor the petitioners cannot be sustained, and the Crimina-l Petition stands dismissed. In the event of liling an application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court is at liberry to dispose of the application on such terms and conditions as it deems fit. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. AMMAJI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER R I -t I Orre f air. Copy to the Hon,ble Sri Justice K.surender | (l-or Hrs Lordship's kind perusal) To 1 J

5. 6 7. 8 st Class Magistrate, Bhongir(with Records if any) The Additional Judicial Firr 11 LR copies I[:,J,iffiB:fl:tary, union of tndia Ministry of Law, Justice and company The Secretary. Advocates Jglrlgglr. Higr, c.,;rr ririt.ffi:t""1?fJ.r:ibrarv' Hish court for the state of I he SHo, Bibinaqar potice StiftoriVafii',iEi"rr"nrgiri Districr 9lg 9C^t9 Sri, M prabhakar, Rovocate 6ptEi'',-r,,' icifluEi Two CD Copies ro brr' vrvekanand Reddy, Addition'at pubtic prosecutor, Advocate HIGH COURT DATED:281212025 + -)c t) ,.) ORDER CRLP No 6395 of 2019 CRIIUINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED R l rlE S l4 o( $( z 2I tiy Ztfr +{, '" ...^ \-- n ,.,.r.o 1