The High Court · 2025

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor. (through EOW Team-ll, CCS, Detective Department. Hyderabad.) High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad. ...RespondenUcomplainant 2. Smt. Bagavalli Jayasree, D/o Subba Rao, Aged about 32 years. Occ. Employee of Satyam Venture Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., R/o Plot No.47, Hanuman Nagar. New Bowenpally, Secunderabad, Telangana State' ...RespondenUDe-facto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in C.C.No.5652 of 2023 pending on the file of the Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and Quash the same. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 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' in C.C.No.5652 of 2023 pending on the file of the Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, pending the disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. V PRABHAKARA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER ! 1 : :I i1 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTTCE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA ORDER: This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.5652 of 2023 against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 on the file of the Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 lPC.

2. Heard Mr.V. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the victims are the colteagues of the petitioner No.1 herein and that he has never cheated anyone and he has not misused the money of the de facto complainant. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner No.lhad not retained any amount, but he had transferred to the account of one Mohan Babu and that the allegation that the petitioner No.1 received returns of the said money is false. He further argued that the petitioner No.1 is also a victim and that he also lodged a complaint vide Crime No.288 of 2022 dated 29.12.2022, but the same was closed on

22.06.2023 by referring as 'lack of evidence'. He further argued that since the petitioner No.1 is also a victim, the present allegations do not \: get attracted and that the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC do 2 \l'', gr4r.\ oh' !ial0r( ol 2c2s t\ not go together which itself shows the allegations are false and hence, prayed to quash the Proceeding s against the petitioners.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the complaint lodged by the petitioner No.1 herein was closed for the reasons stated therein and it does not have any impact on the present case and that the de facto complainant has invested and gave money to the petitioner No.l and therefore, the allegations get attracted and that the petitioner No.1 received money and transferred to the account of one Mohan Babu and received some returns out of the transaction. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Perused the record. 6. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and CC No.5652 ot 2023 is pending on the file of the Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. A perusal of the complaint reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein. The truth or otherwise of the allegations and the veracity of the statements of the witnesses can be tested during the course of trial. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispense with the presence of the petitioners before the trial court and to direct the trial court to dispose of the matter at the earliest. .-- 3 ETD,t Crlp No.tOS{ ofZLis 7 ' Accordingry, this criminar petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the triar court provided they are represented by a counser before the triar court on every date of hearing and sha' appear before the triar court whenever their presence is required during the course of triar and arso directing the triar court to dispose of the matter at the earliest stricfly in accordance with raw without being influenced by any of the observations made by this court. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closed SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN TANT REG //TRUE COPYII OFFICER il;"'Il'roAdditionar Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, The Station House officer, centrar crime station DD, porice station, Hyderabad. Prosecutor, High court for the state of Terangana, at Two CCs to Hyderabad- r88fr'oti"

4. One CC to Mr. V PRABHAKARA RAO, Advocate [oPUC] 5. Two CD Copies \qr \ To, 1 2

3. I i i ! I : I I I I l I I i I I I I i : .: ,i Ir I i HIGH COURT DATED: 2St0Bt2O2S ORDER CRLP.No.10g44 ot 2025 k ,(. '.) ?t ,,-\ j-S rlr\ 1$fi i: a' t i{ l);_:..; Accordingly, this Griminal petition is Disposed of .k