Perused the record The v. The Sfate represe nted by SHO and Anothel

seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.43 of 20 {r on the file of P S EOW Cyberabad, registered for the offences rnder Sections 318(4) 31e(2), 316(2), 316(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2) 61(2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ,2023 (for short ,,BNS, 202:) ) and Sections 66, 66-C, 66-D of ITA 2000-2008, 5 of TSpDFEA Acr 2 Heard the submissions of Sri Thakur Kiran ) ngh, learned counsel representing Ms. Thakur poornima, learned ,ounsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao veeramalla, rea - red Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State anri l,Is L. Durga Devi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 3 The learned petitioner counsel has submittr: that a bare reading of the compraint itserf revears that he is the D oprietor of AV Solutions and that he owns a website and the c tmplaint is a generalized one without any specific allegation s against the petrtioner and that it is a manufactured complaint, the r have taken all the data pertaining to the petitioner and not allo,r ing the legal operations and the petitioner is not able to advise his c ients and that ) ETD,] Crlp. No.10404-2025 thepetitionerislanguishinginjail'iustbasedonthefalseallegations. He further submitted that there is no prima-facie case against the petltioner herein. The petitioner herein is accused No 2 and is no way connected with the allegations leveled and that there is no prima-facie case against the petitioner. All the allegations pertain to llT Transactions, but his company is AV Solutions, which is not concerned with the operations of llT transaction Hence' he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner'

4.ThelearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorhassubmittedthat the allegations are very serious in nature involving a fraud of around Rs.442croresandthattheaccusedNo.2isallegedtohavedeceived 3,373 customers and that he has repaid 337 16 crores and is yet to pay 105.04 crores to the innocent victims He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. He also relied upon the citation in Anil BhavarlatJainandAnotherVs.TheSfateofMaharashtraand Othersl , wherein it was held that any crime registered under the economic offences cannot be quashed.

5.LearnedcounselfortherespondentNo'2-defactocomplainant has also argued submitting that there is a merger between two comparlies i.e., llT transactions and AVS Solutions and that they | 2024 SCC Oflline 3E23 w_-wxry / --r/ l I I B i ! j ! i t 3 I]TD,J Crlp.No.l0,104 2025 have also conducted a [Vleet and Greet program , td that she has also filed the photographs pertaining to the said ieeting and the transactions which are common to both the r:mpanies. She therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition 6 7 Perused the record The petitioner counsel has relied upon A.M. Vlohan Vs. The Sfate represe nted by SHO and Anothel; where r the High Court of I\/adras has rejected the petition filed under Sect,r n 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR in connection with the offence l rnishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the lndian Penai , )ode. The said transaction of money was in between the defacto i omplainant and the accused Nos.'l and 2 to a tune of Rs.1 crore , rd 60 lakhs. To secure the same, the accused No.1 has executed : rnodgage deed in favour of the complainant relating to 100 plc I ; at Sumangali Village. Apart from these transactions, the complai I rnt joined in the Gold Chit Business conducted by the accused No. I and paid a sum of Rs '1 ,20,000/- and it is alleged that the accused l :rsons swindled all the amounts and cheated the complainant intentr rnally by an act of fraud, cheating and criminal breach of trust. ln I re said case, it was held that dishonesty inducement is the sine gr a non to attract - t0lJ sccl Online MAD 2869 4 L fl).J Crlp No.10401_201j the provisions under Section 415 and 420 of the lndian Penal Code The said ingredient is lacking in the said case and therefore, the proceedings were quashed. The facts of the present case differ from the cited decision, hence, the same cannot be made applicable

8. ln Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Others Vs. Sfafe of Bihar and Anothef ; the Apex Court has held that in determining the question, it is to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. lt depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. By observing so, the appeals were allowed quashing the proceedings against the appellants herein.

9. ln Rikhab Birani and Another Vs. Sfate of Uttar Pradesh and Anothel,' it was held that it is the duty and obligation of the Court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing process, ' 2ooo ACR sc 1953 1 2O25,CC Ontine SC 823 l i t ! I i : ! i ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! : i i : I i 1 i I I I )wt!..qFq/ ./ ,/ 5 ETD,J (lrlp.No l0{0{ 2025 particularly when the matter is essentially of c i 'il nature. The prevalent impressron that civil remedies, being time-consuming, do not adequately protect the interests of creditors or l(., rders should be discouraged and rejected as criminal procedure c.rr not be used to apply pressure Failure to do so results in the breal:r own of the rule of law and amounts to misuse and abuse of legal pr,) )ess 10 He has also relied upon in Rashmi Kumar (St tt) Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhadas;where the ingredients of Section 4(rt and 406 of the lndran Penal Code pertaining to criminal breacr of trust were discussed. Though the counsel has relied upon the ; rrd judgment, in the said case, the High Court has quashed the pr: :eedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, while the Apex Court has al c wed the appeal and the Judgment of the High Court was set aside a rd has directed the trial Court to proceed from the stage where the complaint was pending at the time of quashing. Thus, the said deci; cn does not aid the petitioner counsel in any way.

11. ln Mariam Fasihuddin and Another Vs. Sta te by Adugodi Police Station and Anothel ,' wherein the ingrei ents of forgery and use of forged documents were discussed that i was the family 'tg96JTscttnl 6 Criurinal Appcal no -'135 of2024 6 E II) I Crlp.No 10404_2025 :. t ,lr'. I. dispute following the solemnization of marriage between the concerned padies, the wife purportedly endured both physical and mental torture and further was not supported by respondent No.2 and his family members even after the birth of the minor child. The original passport of the minor child was presumed to have been issued with the consent and support of respondent No.2 and he allegedly even sponsored the travel of his wife and minor son through his brother-in-law for Visa purposes, who in his sponsorship letter explicitly cited the passport number of the minor child. Respondent No.2 chose to lodge the concerned FIR as a counterblast to the complaint filed by the appellant-wife inspite of being fully aware of the issuance of the minor child's passport. Thus, the appellants were unnecessarily implicated and dragged into criminal proceedings, thereby causing undue hardship to them. lt was observed that there were numerous complaints and legal proceedings pending between the appellants and respondent No.2, which had adversely impacted the rights and interests of the minor child. The conduct exhibited by respondent No.2 i.e., the husband infringes upon the best interests of the minor child, which necessitates the child's travel abroad, for the realization of opportunities and intrinsic value, aligning with the child's dignity, as ens4frined in the Constitution. With the said observations, the Apex : : I I I i 't I i i i , 7 ETD,J Crlp.No.l0.104 202j Court has quashed the proceedings under Sectio-;420,468,471 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Cod: Iodged by the respondent No.2/husband against the appellant-l,ife and all the proceedings were quashed. The facts and circums i nces of the said decision differ with the present case, hence, ,t e same is not applicable.

12. ln Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhim;inbhai Karmur ancl Others Vs. Sfate of Gujarat and Anothe/; t is held that in a case involved in extortion, forgery and conspirac y where all the appellants were acting as a team, it was not in the r terest of society to quash the FIR on the ground that a settlement heir been arrived at with the complainant The P.C Act has been invok< d involving 6.13 crores. Thereby the High Court has dismissed the ot ash petition and the Apex Court has confirmed the same.

13. ln SomTeet Mallick Vs. Stafe of Jharkhantt and Otherss;it was held that it is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigatio r are before the Court. the Court has to draw an opinion as to fc,r commission of which offence the accused should be tried. prior tc hat, if satisfied, 'r\L,rqstco+i - l:tt:fi scc onlirc s(. 7s.o I ETD.J Crlp.No 10104 2025 the Court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investrgation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR

14. ln State Vs. M. Maridoss and Anothef ; it was held that from the impugned judgment and ol'der passed by the High Court and the reasoning given by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings as if the High Court lvas conducting the mini trial. The scope and ambit of powers to be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been elaborately dealt with and considered by this Court in Neeharika lnfrastructure case'o, by observing so, it is the right conferred upon the investigating agency to conduct the investigation and reasonable tirne should be given to the investigating agency to conduct the investigation unless it is found that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence at all or the complaint is barred by any law.

15. ln Dinesh Sharma Vs. Emgee Cables and Communication Limited and Anothe/ ', decided on 23.04.2025 the Apex Court has considered the decision laid down in Parbatbhai Aahir (supra), e 2023 SCC Online sc 47 'u zo2t t9 s6: 4ll 2025 sdc online sc 929 ,/l ,. t 'I 9 ETD,J Crlp.No.l0404 2025 wherein it is observed that the Economic offenc€ ( by their very nature lie beyond the domain of mere dispute betvr :en the private parties and the High Court would be justified in dec ining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin .r a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequerlr ies of the act complained of upon the financial or economic syst,) n will weigh in the balance. Thus, it can be concluded that econor ric offences by their very nature stand on different footing than ott- ( r offences and have wider ramifications. They constitute a class I )art. Economic offences affect the economy of the country as a wrr )le and pose a serious threat to the financial health of the country. I such offences are viewed lightly, the confidence and trust of th( public will be shaken. The Apex Court has held that High )ourt was not justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 it the said case and has set aside the said order.

16. ln Anil Bhavarlal Jain (supra) a special sta r te i.e., P.C Act has been invoked and a substantial injury was caur; rd to the public exchequer. Therefore, the Lordships' have held ti at quashing of offences under the said Act would have a grave rnd substantial impact not just on the parties involved, but also c r the society at Iarge. As such the High Court committed no error in declining to 10 E I D..J Crlp.No.l0404 202j exercise its inherent powers in the present case, thereby refusing to quash the criminal proceedings. Thus, the Apex Court has upheld the orders of the High Court in dismissing the quash petition.

17. ln the present case the record points out the allegations of financral fraud against the petitioner involving 442.20 crores by running a Ponzi Scheme. lt further points out that thousands of innocent customers are lured under the scheme. lnvestigation is still rn progress

18. ln light of the above held decisions and in view of the above held discussion, it is held that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered as the petition lacks merits.

19. In the result, the Crinrinal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- C. DEEPIKA ISTANT REGISTRAR A ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 The Prinicpal Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District, L. B. Nagar. The Station House Officer, Police Station EOW (Cyberabad), Cybderabad District. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, ilyderabad (OUT) tlne CC to Sri. Thakur Poornima Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copres -.:: -._ T:-.'E I HIGhI COURT DATED:1 110912425 (.):., I U5 Iflfr ,)i- " ORDER CRLP.No.10404 ot 2025 CRIIVIINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED \J,,C i l : { I I I I I I I i I I : I I : : : ; I ! i I ! i I ! ! i I ! I