The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under section 492 0f cr p c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petrtion. ihe Hig]h court may be preased toto quash the SC No. 108/21 on the fire of Ir Metroporitan sessions Judge, Nampaly, Hyderabad, against tne petrttoners herein in the interest of justice. LA. NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under section 4g2 0f cr.p c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandurn of Grounds of criminar petition,ihe H'dh court may be preased to stay aI further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in sc No.i0b/2021 on tne iiie or rr Metropolitan sessions Judge, NampaIy. Hyderabad. pending disposar of quash petition. l.A. N0: 2 OF 2024 Petition under section 52g BNSS praying that iri the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition,iht High court may be preased to extend the lnterim order, dated 2gr1;,0t2024 passed in lA No 01 oriozq tn criminal petition No 8g34 of 2021 until further orders in lhe inlerest of justice. ^ Tl!. Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments oi s.r oelloonn MUNDRA, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri. E. Ganesh, Assistant ptbric prosecutor on beharf of the Responoent r.to. i. The Court made the fo owing: OROER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL .CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.8834 OF 2021 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is frled by petitioners/ accused Nos. 10 and tl seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.No.1O8 of 2O2l on the hle of the learned Il Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr.Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for lh" petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State-

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others alleging that accused No.l with the help of petitioners and other accused have cheated respondent No.2 and others, in the guise of supplying the gold at lOo/o less rate than the market price and collected Crores of Rupees from them and other victims and duped them without supplying the gold as promised. Accused No. t has duped some of the members by giving fake gold biscuits, cheques and promissory notes. Whenever they approached:.ccused No.1's house for repayment she threatened them with the help of rowdy sheeters and henchman. She also I 2 EW,J cr)p 8834-2021 Iodged false cases against the victims in Osmania University police Station. Accused No. 1, petitioners and others were involved in several cheating cases in and around Hyderabad City and accused N<r. 1 was aiso facing CBI cases. tlasing on the ' said facts, Crime No.B3 of 2O13 was registered against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 406,42O, t2O(B), r/w 34,3O7 Sec.25(t)(a) of I.p.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the same set of allegations, this Court vide order dated 14.Og.2olg, in Criminal petition No.2036 of 2012, had quashed the proceedings against petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 42O and 506 of IpC shting that the dispute is civil in nature; vide order dated 14.Og.2olg, in Criminal petition No.3577 of 2013, had quashed the proceedings against petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 5O6 of IpC stating that the dispute is civil in nature. Relying on the,above cited decisions learned counsel for the pedtioners see\s this Court to allow this Criminal petition. 5 Opposing the same, learned Assistant public Prosecutor would submit that unless and until a full-fledged trial 1S i \ l I 3 EVV,J crlp 8834 2O2I conducted, the truth cannot be elicited. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss lhe Criminal Petition.

6.. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsei and relying upon the decision passed the Hon'trle Supreme Court in M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Othersl, this Court is of the opinion that the Court while quashing the F.l.R., by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has. to consider whether the allegations in the F.I.R disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or not; the Court is not I I required to consider on merits, whether or not, the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the Court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the l ) allegations in the F.l.R.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires full-fledged trial, hence this Court is not inclined to entertain this Criminal Petition at this stage. However, as sought for petitioners, the appearance of the petitioners, before the trial Court, is dispensed with on each and every adjournment. However, the petitioners shal1 appear before the trail Court as and when '1zozt1 + s.c.R. 1044 4 E\,A/,J crlp 8834 2021 specifically required. In the event of failure of the petitioners to appear when the Court directs, this order dispensing with their appearance stands cancelled. The petitioners are at liberty to file discharge application before the trial court and the trial Court shaii examine and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

8. With the above observation, the Criminai petition is disposed of Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ To, /ITRUE COPY// SEC TIONOF FICER 1 . The Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, CCS, DD, police Station, ilyderabad. 3. One CC to SRl. DAMODAR MUNDRA Advocate IOptjCl 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, 5. Two CD Copies. Hyderabad. [OUT] PI\4/PSL ..-*-.r.h-d.*f&'-.-- HIGH COURT DATED:3010112425 ORDER GRLP.No.B834 of 2021 E S I.q 1H i I ? 3 14 AY 2n6 7- * t.,.F S t: ^f t DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 4 \a, /) 1