The High Court · 2026

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Ouash the Criminal Proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused for Offence U/Sec. 420 of l.P.C., as pending in Calendar Case C.C. No.224Ol 2024 on the file of Honble Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class For Trial of cases Under Telangana Prohibition Et Excise Act -cum- lv Addl. Junior civil Judge, At Karimnagar arising out of Crime/ RR No. 139 of 2024 of P S' Ramadugu, Karimnagar District l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased To Stay all further proceedings against the Petitioner/ Accused in an inqurry of offence U/Sec. 420 of I.P.C., as pending in Calendar Case C.C. No' ZZqOi ZOZq on the file of Hon'ble Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class For Trial of Cases Under Telangana Prohibition Et Excise Act -Cum- lV Addl. Junior Civil Criminal Petition Judge, At Karimnagar, pending the iral disposal of the This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he ltilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumert s of Sri K KRISHNA SHRAWAN ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender 1ao Veeramalla the Addrtional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Resl) rndent No.1 and of Sri_Advocate for the Respondent No 2 The Court made the following: ORDER THEHON'BLESMT.JUSTICETIRUMALADEVIEADA CRIMINAL PET ITION No.12738 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-sole accused seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.2240 of 2024 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of first class for Trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act-cum'lV Additional Junior civit Judge at Karimnagar, for the offence under Section 420 tPC.

2. Heard Mr. K.Krishna Shrawan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Thoughnotice wasserved onrespondentNo.2,hefailedto appear before this court

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is alleged to have threatened the de facto complainant that in case if he demands for repayment of money, he would get a complaint lodged against the de facfo complainant through his wife. Therefore, lhe de facto complainant has lodged the present complainant to take action against the petitioner herein. He furthersubmittedthattheallegationsareutterlyfalseagai nstthe 2 EfD,J petitioner and that the factual position is that th€ cousin of the petitioner used the credit card pertaining to the pe,l tioner and that there was an MOU entered into between the petitio r :r-accused and his cousin.lt is alleged that the petitioner-accused lr rs taken a loan of Rs.22,10,998/- from the de facto complainant, whc is his friend,for development of his business and that he has prorn sed to pay the said amount with interest at 24o/o per annum, but fa i ed to repay the same and therefore, a legal notice has been issuerl by the de facto complainant.But, the contention of the petitioner is tr tt he has never taken any such loan from the de facto complair tnt. He further hasfi ledabunchofWhatsAppmessagesdisclosingthetr. nsactions between himself and his cousin and the cc unsel for the petitionerhasarguedthatthe whatsAppmessages rl ;closethatitishis cousin who has taken the amount from the de factor omplainant and there were transactions between both the parties an, I he is not at all involved in the said case and has pointed out certai I paymentsmade throug-h online.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that theprosecutioncouldnotcollectanydocumentsinfurthe r rnceoft he complaintandthatthepetitioneristhefriendofLW. 1 andtrr : l I i I I i 3 petitioner has taken money from the de facto complainant and failed to repay and therefore, he is facing the allegations.

6. Perusedtherecord

7. The recitals of the charge sheet disclose that LW.1 i.e. the de facto complainant is a friend of the petitioner-accused and the accused has fraudulentlyenticed the de facto complainant to provide him a loan for the purpose of his business development and promised to return the same in six months, and that lhe de facto complainant has agreed to give the loanThereafter, the de facto complainant transferred an amount of Rs.24,999/- from his account and similady there are account transfers of the money totaling to Rs.22,10,998/- but later on, on 10.05.2024 when the de facto complainanl made a phone call to the petitioner and asked him to repay the amount, he revolted by stating that he will not return the money and threatened that he will get a case filed through his wife against the de facto complainant.The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 lPC.The charge sheet does not disclose any documents collected to prove the offence against the petitioner. The ingredients of Section 42O are extracted hereunderfor the sake of reference: 4 cd.P.No.1 2t JAoltu2s EfO,J "420.Cheatinganddishonestlyinducingdeliveryc'property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly r Juces the person deceived to deliver any property to any p: son, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of ; valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, ar, which is capable of being converted into a valuable secur t , shall be punished with imprisonment of either descriptior or a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also t r liable to fine." B. The dishonest intention of the petitioner h.rr to be shown in receiving the said amount and not repaying the sarr:.ln case, if the money transaction is to be made out and in case if I te accused has allegedly not repaid the loan taken from the de factc, )omplainant, he can as well knock the doors of a civil court by filing ,l suit forrecovery of money, but instead the present complaint is filej for the offence under Section 420 lPC.The de facto complainant t as to show the dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner fronl the inception of the crime. Further it is borne out by record that the gr rtitioner and the de facto complainant are friends

9. The contention of the learned counsel for' .he petitioner is that he is not the actual borrower and that the tre nsactions were between his cousin and the de facto complainil rt herein.When therearenodocumentsorevidencewithregardtotheonl i r : w 5 C.I.Ptlo.l 27 3801216 EfD,J transactions, purported to be filed by the prosecution, no allegation can be arrayed against the petitioner herein. There is nothing on recordtoprovetheoffenceunderSection420 I PC.ThoughtheMOU IS entered between the petitioner and his father on one end and one PyllaRamatulasiandPyllaVenkataChandu,cousinofthepetitioner, the other, it does not pertain to lhe de facto complainant at all

10. ln a similar case, a coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.2560 ot 2022 has quashed the proceedings against the petitioners therein by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in lndianOilCorporationv.NEPClndiaLtd.,andOthersl,whereinit was held that: "lt is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business remedies are time consuming and do not adequatelyprotectsthe interest of lenders/creditors.Thereis also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve anycriminaloffencebyapplying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."

11. ln the present case also, no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner is shown at the inception of the alleged crime andhence,thei ngredientsofSection420l PCdonotsatisfi ed , , 12006)6scc?36 6 ETD,J Thus, in view of the above held discussion and in re light of the above said decision, the petitioner is entitled for the r:lief sought for by him.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is elcwed and the proceedings in CC No.224O of 2024 on the file of !i recial Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases urrr ler Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act'cum-lV Addition:rl Junior Civil Judge, at Khammam, against the petitioner-accu s :d , are hereby quashed. MiscellaneousPetitions,pendingifany,shallstanc :losed. SD/- A.JAYASREE ASiI iISTANT REGISTRAR Note: This order is amended as per Court Order dated 23-02-2026 in l.A.No.2 ot 2026 by replacing the words "Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act-cum- lV Additional Junior Civil judge, Khammam" with "Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases Under Telangana Prohibition and Exicse Act-cum-lV Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar" at para Nos. 'l and12 of theorderdated 19-11-2021. This order substitutes the earlier Order despatched on 06-12-2025. //TRUE COPY,'/ AS f 0 Sd/. A, JAYASREE ISTANT REGISTRAR \\SECT|ON OFFTCER To 1 2 The SpecialJudicial Magistrate of First Class For Trial r f Cases Under Telangana Prohibition Et Excise Act _Cum_ fV nJOf lur or Civit Judge, At Karimnaga r. The SHO-Ramagundam police Staion, Khammam Dis.r ct. -M w 3 Two Copies to Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at Htderabad [OUT] 31""'#i;i-RL ( rnrsHrun sHRAwAN Advocate loPuc] Two CD CoPies

4. 5. PK/PR \ HIGH COURT DATED:1911112025 23-02-2026 * iat.;t4 o ( o U 31 ttq 10rE t O6: -L:'.i t I AMENDED ORDER CRLP.No.12738 of 2025 CRIMINAL PEITITION IS ALLOWED AND Tl-I: PROCEEDINGS AGATNST PETITIONER/AC(: USED ARE HEREBY QUASHED 8 L- <:: ,4rlu