Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri v. Ravi Kiran Rao, representing Sri. S. SURENDER REDDY

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 interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.10145 of 2022 on the file of ll Addl. Chief Metropolitan lr/lagistrate, Hyderabad as against the petitioners / accused No.1 and 2, including appearance in the interest of justice pending disposal of the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, representing Sri. S. SURENDER REDDY, Advocate for the petitioner and the Sri. Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI - CRIMINAL PETIT ION No.835 10F 2023 , ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners_accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C No,'1 0145 of 2022 including impugned orders dated 04 08.2023 passed by the rearned il Additionar chief lVretroporitan lVlagistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 324 of the lndian penal Code (for short ,lpC,). 02 Heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and Smt.S.lVadhavi, learned [rlo.1 . None Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent appeared for the respondent No.2. perused the record. 03(a). ln brief, the case of the complainant_respondent No.2 is that the accused No.1 approached him seeking financial assistance for his business and personal requirements. ln response, the respondent No.2 pledged gold ornaments belonging to his wife and transferred various amounts into the account of the accused No.1 on different dates. ln return, the 2 accused No.1 is stated to have executed promissory notes and issued post-dated cheques. Similarly, the accused No.2 also approached the respondent No.2 and obtained a hand loan, for which, the respondent No.2 once again pledged his wife's gold ornaments and transferred funds into the account of the accused No.2. The accused No.3 is also alleged to have borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondent No.2. Subsequently, when the respondent No.2 demanded repayment of interest arrears from the accused Nos.1 and 2, it is alleged that the accused No.3 transferred a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to his account 03(b). lt is further alleged that thereafter', on 02.01 2022, the accused Nos.1 to 3, through one Eluru Anand, allegedly requested the respondent No.2 to amicably settle the matter and called him to the office of 'Nava Prabhat', lclcated opposite the I CCIA office, along with the original prdmissory notes, cheques, and receipts. Trusting them, the respondent No.2 went to the said location with the original documents, where the accused No.1 allegedly demanded that the originals be handed over to him, assuring that the outstanding amounts due from the accused Nos.2 and 3, who were purportedly waiting in a nearby car, would be repaid. 3 03(c). lt is further alleged that believing the same, the respondent No.2 handed over the documents. However, the accused No.1 allegedly proceeded towards the car and attempted to abscond with the herp of the driver and other associates present. when the respondent No.2 tried to intervene, he was allegedly pushed out of the car, causing him to fall on the road, after which the accused and their associates have assaulted him, He was taken to Osmania Hospital and treated on the same day as a medico-legal case. After his recovery, on 02.01 .2022, the respondent No.2 approached the Abids police Station and lodged a complaint, but no action was reportedly taken by the police. Hence, he filed a private complaint before the learned lVlagistrate for taking appropriate action. 04(a). Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the pelitioners submits that the petitioners-accused Nos..1 and 2 have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences. It is contended that there was no dishonest or fraudurent intention attributabre to the petitioners at the inception of the transaction, which is a sine qua non for invoking the penal provisions under Section 420 lp) The court berow initia[y took cognizance of the offences under Sections 324,3g6,420, and 506 lpc vide a docket order dated 4 Y-'1 - t

13.12.2022, without assigning any reasons and the petitioners filed Criminal Petition No.1716 of 2023 and by order dated

27.02.2023, after hearing both sides, this Court was pleased to quash the said docket order on the ground that it lacked proper reasoning for taking cognizance and issuing summons Subsequently, the learned trial Court by impugned order dated

04.08.2023 again took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 324 IPC without assigning reasons to detnonstrate the judicial satisfaction required for taking cognizance 04(b). lt is further submitted that after qrlashing of the earlier docket order, the learned [/lagistrate failed to record the sworn statement of the respondent No.2 afresh and once again proceeded to take cognizance. rnechanically. lt is also submitted that the alleged incident occurred on 02.01 .2022'., the medical certificate relied upon by the respondent No.2 and considered by the trial Court is dated 05.06.2022, nearly five months later, which undermines the credibility of the allegations. 04(c). lt is further subnritted that the transactions referred to in the complaint and the impugned order are purely civil in nature and do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. The petitioners and the respondent No.2 are admittedty 5 family members, and there are disputes between them. Although the alleged monetary transactions are from 2019, the respondent No.2 did not approach any elders or lodge a police complaint at the relevant time. 04(d) lt is further alleged that even according to the complaint, the incident occurred on 02.0'l .2022, and it is claimed that a police complaint was lodged on the same day, yet the respondent No.2 waited until 15.1 1.2022to file the present private complaint, resulting in unexplained and inordinate delay, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. The dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature, .and the attempt of the respondent No.2 to give a criminal colour to a civil transaction is a gross abuse of the process of law. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitionJrs/accused Nos.1 and 2.

05. C)n the other hand, learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture and the matter 6 \ is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition

06. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon considering the submissions advanced by both sides, it is evident on the face of the record that the complainant and the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are members of the same family, and that there have been loan transactions between them since the year 2019. Despite repeated demands made by the complainant, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 have allegedly failed to repay the said loan amounts. lt is further alleged that the original documents pertaining to the said transactions were taken away by the petitioners-accused from the complainant. lt is an undisputed fact that there exist family disputes between the parties to the present criminal petition

07. ln order to attract the penal provision under Section 420 of lPC, it is a well-settled principle of law that there must be a dishonest or fraudulent intention to deceive the complainant right from the inception of the transaction. Mere failure to fulfill a promise or repay the loan amount, without such initial dishonest intent, does not constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC Likewise, to invoke the penal provision of Section 324 lPC, there 7 must be specific and clear allegations of voluntarily causing hurt by means of a dangerous weapon. ln the absence of such essential ingredients, the invocation of these penal provisions cannot be sustained.

08. A careful perusal of the contents of the complaint discloses that the issue revolves around the monetary transactions between the parties. lVlere demands for repayment of the loan amount will not primafaice attracts the ingredients required for constituting the offence under Section 420 of lpC. Furthermore, there is no specific allegation in the complaint regarding the use of any 'dangerous weapon, so as to bring the case within the ambit of Section 324 lpc. The complaint, therefore, lacks the material particulars required to establish the commission of above offences. rt is arso pertinent lo note that there is an unexplained and unreasonable delay in lodging the complaint, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations Additionally, although the complainant has named certain individuals as witnesses in the complaint, the learned l\rlagistrate neither examined those persons nor referred the complaint to the police for appropriate investigation, prior to taking cognizance against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2. Y*1\l - I 8 09 lt is pertinent to note that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 had earlier instituted Criminal Petition No 17.16 of 2023, wherein the criminal proceedings were quashed vide Order dated 27.02.2023 on the ground that the cognizance order dated

13.12.2022 passed by the learned tt/agistrate lacked reasoning, while granting libe(y to the learned Magistrate to take cognizance afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant thereto, the learned [Vlagistrate once again took cognizance against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 vide the impugned order dated 04.08.2023. However, a bare perusal of the said order demonstrates, except mere reiteration of the complainant's averments, no independent, proper or cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned [/lagistrate for taking cognizance.

10. lt is a well-settled principle of law that it is the I bounden duty of the t\Iagistrate to apply his judicial mind and record satisfaction as to whether the allegations made in the complaint, on their face, constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged. Furthermore, the act of summoning an accused in a criminal case is a matter of serious consequence and cannot be undertaken routinely. The criminal law machinery ought not to be set in motion mechanically or in a casual manner. The order -, I summoning the accused must reflect due application of mind to both the factual aspects and the legal provisions involved. The learned l\4agistrate ought to have referred the complaint to the jurisdictional police for investigation to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the allegations made. Such non-compliance with the procedural formalities vitiates the cognizance order. ln that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate has grossly failed to assess whether the allegations made ln the complaint, even if taken at face value, constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged. Furthermore, the learned lVlagistrate has committed a grave procedural irregularity in not examininQ the individuals named in the complaint, and has also failed to refer the complaint to the Police for proper investigation prior to takinglqognizance against the petitioners-accused Nos..l and 2. Consequenfly, the impugned cognizance order dated 04.OB.ZO23 passed by the learned ll Additional Chief l\4etropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is unsustainable in law, patenfly illegal, and constitutes a manifest abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the said order is liable to be set aside and quashed. ( ( 10 \---'1\r. I -

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned cognizance order dated 0'1.08.2023 in C.C.No.10145 of 2022 passed by the learned ll Additional Chief tVletropolitan tt/lagistrate, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside. All proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any' shall stand closed Sd/- L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The ll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad. One CC to Sri. S. SURENDER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for thd State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] TTS/PSL

4. Two CD Copies l,D\, \-*' ,,.'lj,- ',;':- 'i., ) * 17 tEP 2w t ,.^. ic HIGH COURT DATED: 2510712025 ORDER CRLP.No.8351 ot 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED