The High Court · 2025

AND 1- THE STATE OF TELANGANA' Rep- by its Public Prosecutor High Court of ' i;i;r;;;;, Hvo","oJo "'ResPondent 2. SRl. HITESH 8ANG, S/o Shyam Sundar Bgng' R/o 4- 4- 119/5/A' Tejaswi - l'tagar Colony, Rajendranagar, Rangareddy' Ielangana' No.1 ...Respondent N o-21 Delaclo Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BN SS praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroUndSofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay bepleasedtoQuashFlRNo-166/2025dated22.05.2025registeredatPolice station Khairatabad, District. Hyderabad, Telangana for the offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 61(2) BNS. 2023 against the Petitioner / Accused Nos. 1 - 3; I.A. NO:ZOF 2O25 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 stay of all further proceedings in Crime No 166 of 2025 on the file of Khairtabad Police Station, Hyderabad for the offences under Section 318(4)' 336(3), 61(2) ANS 2023 against th€ Petitioners/Accused Nos' 1- 3' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusin the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearinc the arguments of M/s. MAANASA K, Advocate for the petitioners anc.r I lr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additionar pubric prosecutor on ber z If of respondent No.1 and Mr ABDUL MATHEEN eURESHI, Advocate for the R3 ;pondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12864 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (fot short 'BNSS') (for short'BNSS') by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the proceedings against them in FIR No.'|66 of 2025 on the file of Khairatab Police Station. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 318 (4), 336 (3) and 61 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short'BNS').

2. Heard Ms.K.Maanasa, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 -State and Mr.Abdul Matheen Qureshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter pertains to a commercial transaction, and that the petitioners are merely investors. lt is only during the exchange of emails that they came inlo contact with respondent No-2. Respondent No.2 has now filed a false complaint, alleging that due to the petitioner's failure to inv-est, the respondent No.2/de 2 facto complainant suffered loss both in terms o money and reputation. She further submitted that the FIR is b ad in law, as none of the essential ingredients of the alleged offe rce are made out against the petitioners. lt is further alleged tha the de facto complainant engaged in exchanging WhatsA;t ) messages through other persons, thereby further damaging te petitioners' reputation. She therefore prayed to quash th{) pr.oceedings against the petitioners. 4 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has s rbmitted that the petitioners were involved in the activity of inrr sting money. However, after respondent No.2 invested funds, t re petitioners allegedly backed out, thereby causing loss to he de facto complainant, as revealed from the contents of the c tmplaint. lt is further submitted that there are specific allegations nade against the petitioners. He also submitted that the petitione-r created fake documents. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the pet .ion. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 subrr tted that the petitioners were involved in fraudulenfly creatinll seals of the Reserve Bank of India and using them to falt icate certain documents. He further submitted that the petiti rner No.1 is 3 already involved in 14 to 15 criminal cases across lndia' involving serious offences. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition' ln reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted 6. that although there are cases pending against him' respondent No. 2 is using his influence against the petitioner No' 1 and is making false allegations' T.Thecontentsofthecomplaintindicatethatthepetitioners submitted false financial documents' fabricated UETR numbers' andsentnumerousforgedforms,includingoDlandAML clearances.TheyalsoSentfakeemailspretendingtobefrom banks and legal authorities' Additionally' they falsely claimed to have invested in other companies' The Director' who is Petitioner No.1, also has a history of fraud' with public complaints and police press releases available against him' Therefore' the allegations raise serious economic concerns against the petitioners. ln view of the dictum laid down in Anit Bhavarlal Jain and Another Vs' The Sfafe of Maharashtra and Othersl ' wherein it was held that any crime registered under the economic offences cannot be quashed' ' 2024 SCC Ontine 3823 ) ) 4 B. ln Anil Bhavartal Jain (supra) a special s tatute i.e., p.C Act has been invoked and a substantial injury w.t caused to the public exchequer. Therefore, the Lordships, h lve held that quashing of offences under the said Act wourd hz, e a grave and substantial impact not just on the parties involved, rut also on the society at large. As such the High Court commilt )d no error in declining to exercise its inherent powers in the tresent case, thereby refusing to quash the criminal proceedin ys. Thus, the Apex Court has upheld the orders of the High Cou. in dismissrng the quash petition. f. in view of the above held discussion, this, Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation process, ,n hich is still in progress ln the result, the Criminal petition is dismissecl Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand 't0 closed SD/- I( BHAVANI SWAMY AS$rS rANT REGTSTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// I;ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additionat Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, H1,< erabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Khairatabad police Station, F) lerabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stat( of Teiangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] A*

4. One CC to M/s. MAANASA K, Advocate [OPUC] .5. Two CD Copres HIGH COURT DATED: 0611012025 ORDER CRLP.No.12864 ot 2025 /.' ,,' \ft.- :,t: {1. i. \':. { '(- i j4 DrC mffi \ -.'. ',.. . - ,,/ .,. : The Criminal Petition is Dismissed. 1 \0 1^ l\