Criminal Petition No. 11591 of 2025 · High Court · 2025

1. Thc State of Telangana, Rep. bv its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyclerabad for the Statc of relangana Through P S Karimnagar J (T)

2. Paripelli Satya Shekhar, S/o Venkati, Aged 67 yrs., Occ:Managing Partner of Neerav Enterprsises and Managing Director oi Venkat Sai Enterprises Pvt Ltd R/o. H.No. 8-6- 300' Kothirampur' Karimnagar Irh 98480 05580 ..Respondent. ...I{espondent/ Dciacto Comprainant. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash thc C.C.No.1392 of 2025 on t1-re File of II Addl. Juciicial Magistratc of First Class At Karimnagar registered against thc Petitioners/ accused No.1 to 3 U/s 420,406,467,468 IPC as illegal, arbitrary, speculative, abuse of process of lart,, imaginary and violative of Articles 14,21, of the Constitution of Inclia and to pass such other order(s) as are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. I.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Pctition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court mav be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.1392 of 2025 on thc File of il Add1. Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Karimnagar registelcd against the Petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 3, U/s 420, 406, 467, 468IPC including their appearance. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Crounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.Surya Satish, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosccutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appearing in person or through his counsel. The Court made the follou.ing: ORDER THE HOI!'3I-E SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE\/I EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11591 OF 2025 ORDER: This Crrminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos l to 3 serel<ing to quash the proceedings in C C.Nr> 1392 of 2025 on the lile of the learned ll Additional Judicial l/laglistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, registered for the offences under Sections 420,406,467 ard 468 of the lndian Penal Code (for:;hort "lPC")

2. Heard the submissions of Sri T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for thr: petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Vr:eramalla, learned Additrorral Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 .- State

3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that the petitioners are facing false allegations and that ihe petitioner- accused No.1 is an lnsurance Adviser and accused No.2 is the Manager of l=uture General lnsurance Company, accus,=d No.3 is the Manager in Prathima lnstitute of Medical Sciences and that they have not conrnritted any offence as alleged by thr-. de-facto complainant arrd that they never acted in collusion vrith each other and have not given any false information to the lnsurance Company The, allegation that they got deposited r;rores; of rupees towards comrnission into their accounts is utterly false. The petitioner cor n sel has further submitted that per<;entage of 2 commission is not disputed, which is part of their transactions, but in the compliant, vague and bald allegations are leveled against the petitioners. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the statement of LW3 reveals that the pay out money is being deposited into the accounts of accused No.1 and LW4 has also furnished the statement of account which further proves the allegation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition

5. Perused the record.

6. A perusal of the record reveals that the statement of LW3 who is an employee in the lnsurance Department points out that accused No.1 worked as lnsurance Advisor and that he used to handle all the insurance matters and that one Paripelli Satya Shekar/de-facto complainant used to occasionally call the petitioner No.1 and ask him why the payout percentage from the Future General lnsurance Company was so low and that he used to give some evasive excuses and on enquiry, the de-facto complainant found out that the pay out money from the insurance company was being deposited into the account of petitioner No.1 and when the de-facto complainant has asked the petitioner about the said fact, I the petitioner lro.1 has admitted that the companies paytut money was deposited into his account. lt is alleged that thr-. de-facto complainant h,rs further checked the company iapkrp of the petitioner the l,ank account statement also has shown the amount deposited into tlre account of petitioner No.1 and that it was transferred tire next day to the account of petitioner No.2 and further the mc,noy was deposited into the account of petitioner No.3 The statement,rf LW4 who is the Bank Manager is also recorded which shows tlrat he has provided the bank statemerts to the Police. The vr:racity of the witnesses and the strength of documentary ev idence including the bank statements ne red to be tested during the : course of trial

7. ln the resrlt, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dspensing with the attenclance of the petitioners before the trial ,l)ou't, unless their presence is; specifically required by the trial Coufi during the course of trial, rrovided that they shall be represented by their counsel on every date of hearing Miscellanecus applications pending, if any, sha:ll stand I I closed //TRUEC]PY/l SD/. V.KAVITHA EPUTY REGISTRAR \ ----'- "l srcIoN oFFtcER To,

1. 2. 3. /-N;\cr/ The II Adclitional Ju dicial Magistratc of First Ciassat Karitlrragar The Station tloust: ()fficer]?irlmnag-a]--f.(T) Police Station' Karimnagar' o". i'iii's,:i'i .1,,I'u s..rtisl, Atlvocate [oPUCl . . one CC to the I'ubl . I"""t;t;;'i{'i;;ct*t-n-'iirai"gs' Hvdt'rab'rd' [oPt]cl Two CD CoPies TSL I ,/ /'r"ti 23 \ l" ItI 2$25 o -t I ;.AT C\.'.i) IJICI{ COUI(T DArI:.D:22/09/202t ORDIrlt CRLI'.No.11591 of 2U2.r Disposing of the Criminal I'etition ( 'lA \D