The High Court · 2025

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad

2. The lnspector of Police, EOW Cyberabad Police Station Cyberabad District. 3. Mr.Kunaal Aroon Vahalia, S/o Aroon Vahalia, Occ. Travel agency owner, Aged 45 Yrs, R/o B/9 , Trivaeni Building, Next to Sital Baug, 66 Walkeshwar Road, Malabar Hill. Mumbai Maharashtra, PIN 400006 Aadhat 827238390977 ph 98209s4856 ..Respondents/Com plainant 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 the proceedings in F.l.R.NO. 24 ot 2024 on the file of EOW Police Station, Cyberabad Dishict against the Petitioners. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr ARUN KUMAR JAISWAL, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 & 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA / CRIMINAL PETITION No.1 oF 2025 This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner_accused No.6 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.24 of 2024 ot EOW Cyberabad police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under sections 420 and 406 of r.p.c. and section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Estabrishments Act (for short, 'TSPDFEA').

2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Learned counser for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is accused No.6 and that he is not an ,agent,as alleged by lhe de facto complainant, but he is an ,investor, and that he is the whistle-blower against the offences committed by accused No.1 herein. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot be arrayed as an accused and that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are farse. He further submitted that the ingredients under Sections 420 and 406 of l.p.C. do not attract against the petitioner j i l 2 herein. He further submitted that Section 5 of not attract at all, as the petitioner is neither Agent. He, therefore, prayed to quash the present crime against the petitioner herein. crl. p. No. r : 6s6 o fEloDz i TSPDFEA also does a Company nor an proceedings in the 4' Learned Additionar pubric prosecutor submitted that the prosecution courd corect ampre materiar to show that the petitioner herein worked as an agent of f\,/s. profitgenix Financiar services Private Limited, corected deposits from the innocent customers and later on did not pay them any returns or their own amounts. Hence, the a'egations point out that the petitioner rured the depositors and co'ected amounts from them. He further submitted that charge sheet is atready fired and it is under consideration by the triar court for taking cognizance. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the criminar Petition.

5. perused the record. 6' The contents of the compraint point out that the petitioner herein, who is arrayedas accused No.6, is an agent aileged to have worked under M/s. profitgenix Financiar services private Limited. The instructions submitted by the rearned Additionar pubric Prosecutor discrose the invorvement of the petitioner herein. rt is ,- J ETD,J Crl.P.No.l3656 of 2025 alleged that the petitioner played a significant role in the operation of the said Company, which was involved in fraudulent activities under the guise of offering high interest investments. lt is alleged that the petitioner has induced the customers to make investments in the said Company. lt is further made out during the course of investigation that the petitioner herein worked as an agent on commission basis and made the investors invest large sums around Rs.50,00,000/- to Rs.70,00,000/- in the company. Thus, the allegation s prima facie point out the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner is not an agent and that he is an investor. But, the recitals of the complaint disclose that he is not an investor and that he worked as an agent for the said Company. As per the instructions submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, charge sheet is filed and cognizance is awaited from the concerned Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Rajendra Bihari Lal and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersl and contended that an F.l.R. lan Oe quashed even after filing of the charge sheet. ln ' zozs lNsc 1249 (w.P.(cRl.).No.123 of 2023,dated 17.10.2025) 4 ETD,J Crl.P.No.l3656 of 2025 the above cited decision, the Honourable Apex court has discussed its earlier decision in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. state (NCT of Delhi)2, wherein it is held as: "14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned senior counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge-sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. we do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this court in Joseph salvaraj A. v. state of Gujarat [Joseph salvaraj A. v. state of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 231. tn Joseph Salvaraj A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) Z SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 231, this Courtwhile deciding the question whether the High court could entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of FlR, when the charge_ sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed : (SCC p.63, para 16) "16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FtR. Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge [Joseph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat,2OOT SCC Online Guj 3651 could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facib made out from the complainant's FlR, charge-sheet, documents, etc. or not." I 2 1zots1 I I scc 706 ,7 5 ETD,J Crl.P.No.l3656 of2025

8. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon a decision of the Honourable Apex Court in lqbal @ Bala and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others3, wherein it was held that when charge sheet is filed and it is under consideration by the Court concerned for taking cognizance, at that stage also, the proceedings cannot be quashed, but the accused has a recourse to file a discharge petition before the trial Court. ln the present case, charge sheet is filed and the cognizance order is awaited. The allegations are very serious in nature, wherein several victims are alleged to have been deceived involving lakhs of rupees. Therefore, in view of the above held discussion and in the light of lqbal @ Bala's case (supra 3), this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the pelitioner herein. Thus, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merit.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. L LAKSHMI BABU EPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Junior.Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, L. B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. The Station House Officer, EOW (Cyberabad) potice Station Cyberabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] I I - I ./'

4. One CC to Mr. ARUN KUMAR JA|SWAL, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two CD Copies RC/PSL ?,r- I {l HIGH COURT r \ DATED: 1811112025 I I I i * ORDER CRLP.No.13656 of 2025 ;. ., J ( * Tt-iE S-!-4 (r. 7 o ..\ 20DirM ,.. |.t.r - j-.1:i, ,l Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Dismissed. f+ -r-{tJLd-