The v. Sfafe of Jharkhand and Anothef, wherein it was held that the offence under Sectio

Petiiion under Se:ction 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandunr of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased tc quash the entire proceedings of FIR No. 02 of 2025 dated A3rc1 2025 c,n the frle of Gadwal Rural Police Station, Jogulamba Gadwal District !.A. N(l: 1 DF 2425 Petition under Se,clion 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances statei in the [,/]emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleasecr to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant FIR No. 02 of 2025 ':'.,-.:jii#' ciated o3 o1 2025 on the file of Gadwal Rural Police Statiorr Jogulamba Gadwal Drstrict. till the clispcsai of ihe main Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusinr; re Memorandum of Grounds of crirninal Petition and upon heartng the argurr rnts of sri sangam :lanthosh .Advccate for t're Petitioner and sri Jithender : ao Veeramalla, the Additional Pubiic Prosecutor for the state of Telanga r z on behalf of the Respcnd ent No. 1 The Court made the follov,ting: ORDEli. ;l_ l THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12615 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in FlR.No 0 2 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Gadwal (R), Jogulamba Gadwal, registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 of the lndian penal Code (for short'lPC')

2. Heard the submissions of Sri S. Santosh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even as per the complaint, accused No.1 died and there is no allegation in the complaint as against accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the petitioners herein. Therefore, the allegations under Sections 406 and 42O of IPC do not get attracted against the petitioners. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased and that the investigation has revealed that Rs.4,00,000/- was transferred to the account of the 2 petitioner No.1 who is accused No.2 and the bank a ) )ount statement was collected in this regard. He further submitted thz I the petitioners herein have promised to settle the issue rari :l the de-facto complainant, but they have withdrawn the sai J amounts and purchased Ac.2.03 guntas of land and got it registr: ed in the name of accused No.3. He further submitted that they sl oceeded to the estate of the deceased and are bound by the liabili:i :s also. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition 5 Perused the record. It is alleged that the deceased-K.Venkatesr was running Angel One share [Vlarket Office in the name of his i ,ife and that he made people believe that if they invest money. thev ruould get good returns and thus, believing his words, the de{acto c cmplainant has invested amounts through Phonepe to a total exterr: of Rs.25 lakhs in installments Along with him, his brother and few c thers also have invested the amounts. ln favour of some people, the deceased have given Bond Papers and Promissory Notes and on Cz .08.2024, while he was travelling to Hyderabad, K. Venkatesh has died due to an accident and after the death, when they questic red about the repayment of the money invested by them, ttr, r father of K ,4#F.!*-4ry// -' 3 Venkatesh, wife, brother-Ravi, Brother-in-law/Radha Krishna have promised to settle the matter and stated that they would look into the accounts and pay them back, but they failed to do so. They have also learned that the accused have purchased a land to an extent of Ac.2,30 guntas at lt/acharla Village in the name of accused No.3/Radha Krishna who is the brother-in-law of the deceased. Thus, the allegations point out an offence of serious nature against the petitioners herein. The petitioner counsel contends that the deceased who collected the amount from the de-facto complainant has passed away and that the allegations under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC do not attract against the petitioners. The facts brought out during the investigation with regard to the alleged purchase of Ac.2.00 guntas of the land, out of the deposits collected from the victims needs to be further investigated into. Thus, there is a prima-facie case against the petitioners. The process of investigation is still in progress. Thus, the truth is yet to be unravelled, whether Sections 406 or 420 of IPC get attracted or not cannot be decided at this stage, lt is alleged that the deceased was entrusted with money and the petitioner No.1/accused No.2 succeeded to the Estate of the deceased, there is an alleged purchase of property in the name of petitioner No.2/accused No.3. 4 Thus, it is not proper to quash the proceeding ; against the petitioners herein

6. The petitioner counsel has relied upon Arsharl Neyaz Khan Vs. Sfafe of Jharkhand and Anothef, wherein it was held that the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC do not g: together and that the ingredients if not made out for the offence, ti ( proceedings cannot be continued.

7. The Apex Court has discussed the principlert; lard down in Sfate of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal2 and also the obst't vations of the Apex Court in Vishal Nob/e Singh Vs. State of Ut ar Pradesh3, wherein it was observed that in recent years the machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons i r their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and r yenda. Courts have therefore to be vigilant against such tendenci: ; and ensuTe that acts of omission and commission having an ad"' rrse impact of the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud. W: say so for the reason that while the complainanUrespondent No.2 t'z s made grave allegations against the appellant herein, he has failer I to .iustify the same before this Court. Such actions would crtl rte significant I Sp[.Lcave Petition(Criminal).No.3606 of 2024 ':Suppl.(l) SCC 33s ' 2024 SCC Onlinc SC 1680 _r' -*ry..:- .,v 5 divisions and distrust among people, while also placing an unnecessary strain on the judicial system, particularly criminal Courts. Thus, the proceedings against the petitioners in the said case were quashed. B But in the present case, the allegations do point out the offence of collecting deposits from innocent people and not repaying them. Since, the investigation is still in its nascent stage, it cannot be said whether the ingredients under Sectrons 4OG or 42O lpC would get attracted against the petitioners or not. Prima-facie allegations point out the commission of an offence. Hence, the cited decision is not applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the petition lacks merits and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- s . JAWAHAR REDDY TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII CTION OFFICER To, ] ]he lAddjtional iudir;ial First Class Magistrate at Gadwal. 2 The S-tation House Officer, police Statio'n-6i'O*rf i-nl, Jogulamba Gadwal 3 fwo CCs to the publ:c prosecutor, ff igh Court oi Telangana, Hyderabad 4. One CC to Sri. Sanoam Santhosh Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies (our) o t I-NIGH COURT ilAl"ED:'t U1A12fr25 ,.- ., ., I 5 lii 7rl25 ..--:..,-.....---'-. $R{}ER tlRE-.P.No. 1261 l; of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED