High Court · 2025

IH,,:11,firg.',3H.11fl?;,[TF:[,i',8,*ffi",41ffI."L".";'iY3l'ifrti':'5"q+"' i;d;s;# at HYderabad' 'H,!]iiff H.3!T*ffi:f#]l3;,ff il,f t"'ffi 'Etbff i"J't"',fl i$l"l'f"l Petition under Section 482 ot c.P'c .ResPondents/ComPlainants "1l"g"llX:',}|ftr;,H1,4,? HriE#lH#;[i;".di#tu[t.$i#iliifl t.A. NO: 10F 2023 petition under Section 482 0f cr.p.c.plrylng that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand""otb?uiioJ"i C'i'i"llFetition' the High Court may be oleased to stav of '" tn" i'jni"i o'**oi"o! it c'c' t'to's+z ol 2016 on the file ot irre xv, Additional cr,iJ'rrli"ir"pliitan tuajistrre, Hvderabad at Nampally' for the alleged offences ,^o"l dt""ii""'"-iiii' +z'i ttt'..!se' 471 ruw' section 34 of l.P.C., pendins disposar ;ffi;il"h";;titi;t' failinj'which the petitioner will suffer serious loss and iniustice' ,,/ CRIMI NAL PETI Tl,f N NO: 12s740F2 023 Between: S. Prem Kurnar S/o. Lat, Business,n/il.;r,t'i.rlr5:fi ji.'fJf',$:A:,fiSld,f r6iii,ll,".TJ"1,1?T,.?o"oo"" AND

1. $$3ij,li*|i7gft *m'rH:",8,*ffi#tfi ',J^"5?r.,i,?,?"Tlf,S:i j* ...lretitione r/Accused No.2 2 M/s. Pragathr ( j.een Meado S,.g],i:l;hl;llef a:-:ittll,.*i'i.1lll',1"*i;:liitJl,',flTt?t"l1 petition rnder Section ::?.."1.r, O or'r,"l;:::::::J:.# stated in.the Memor;r rdum of GrounJs "i y"""r^,-"1i,:'y,T.f .:;)i,'Ji"'"*;tfu"";[iJ;-"i,.1, j]:l'1':;:l,Ia^i.; section qoa, Mrl. r z,iaa, 471 Rtw.section so;r r.p 3" ,rileged r,ffences under l.A. NO : 10F 202:\ ciii,lrirp; Petition uncie' siection 482 of cr.p.c praying...that in,he ;ircumstances stated in the Memc,rarc,rm of Grounds bii"ril"irp"tition, ihe ,igh Court mav be pteased to stav of r' the further p;";;r;" i;' ErJ. "i of 201( on the fiL of the XVil Additional Crrerf Metropollr" nl"Si"rr,": iyteraOaO at Nar,rpafly, for the "o..u,, alleged offences urrd*r section- qoa, qzo,"+ii,-iaa,,'ql ,r R/vr,. sectiorr 3 q oi'i.i.c., 3ff:[t,i:::.';],:,1:: quash petition" i'iri"g ;ii"r, th" p",[i;;;;l;i';-,o", These Petitionr j c()mil Grounds or cri mi ne r ;:?,il J",::"',li;.'ri!"?,iJ",;n rn", J; ::i: "ii,..j Vishweshwar Ra() A :i. Advocate for the petitioners in botr cftlps and smt. S Madhavi' Assistant plrr)'ic prosecutor on beharf oi tt " R""porcent No..1 in both CRLPs and none etr perared for the Respondent No.2 in both CRLps The Court made the forlowing: COMMON ORDER / i,^) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITI ON Nos.12 530 & 12 574 of 2O23 COMM ON ORDER Criminal Petition No.12574 of 2023 is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No'2 in C.C.No.569 of 2016 on the file of XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally' for the offences under Sections 408, 42O, 417 ' 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'lPC')' 2 Criminal Petition No 12530 of 2023 is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner- accused No.2 in C.C.No'542 of 2016 on the file of XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan l\lagistrate' Hyderabad at Nampally, for the offences under Sections 408' 420' 417' 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC' 3 Since the petitioner is one and the same and allegations are also similar, both the petitions are disposed of by waY of this common order.

4. Heard Mr.A.G.Vishweshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No'2 and Smt'S'Madhavi' l 7 learned ,r\ssistant public prosecutor for the Stete. [here is no represent,:tron on behalf of respondent No.2. Ferur;ed .he record. 5 The gist of the complaint is that the cetitioner_ accuse,:l I'J,:2 worked as Senior Manager.. A1 v,orked as incharg-- cf Annual lVlaintenance Depaftment (Al\lC) of the Company r\3 worked as Co_ordinator anrj 44 worked as Telecall_-r ir the AIMC in pragathi Green lVleaoows and Resorts Lirrited. The allegation against the petrtion=r is that during their emproyment period, he arong with oi.her accused had conrn-iited irregularities and has sold ltlotrs ol existing custome.s k> the customers who newly alrproacled their organiza:ior, instead of offering the Company plcts. €; [.earned counsel for the petitioner. submi-ted that though the pre;fifiensp is innocent and has nothinJ; to do with the alleged cffences, basing on the confessiorr of A1, he was falsely impl cated in the case. The sale deu_dsidocuments filed in the, cc rnplaint does not disclose that the petitiorrer is a party or vritrress to the transaction. There arre ro r,;pecific allegaticlnsr aglainst the petitioner and the ingrediernts of offences allegyed against him are not made out. He further 3 submitted that in Crl.P.Nos.4298 and 4323 of 2020, this Court has quashed the proceedings against accused No 1' Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against thepetitionerandthetruthorotherwiseoftheallegationslevelled against the petitioner can only be known after conducting full- fledged trial. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the petition' B. As seen from the record, the Police conducted investigation and filed charge sheets' The only evidence in both cases is the confession allegedly made by accused No l ' ln the complaint, except stating that the de facfo complainant came to know about the diversion of customers and the transactions in question, nothing was mentioned as to how the Company's properties were subjected to any kind of cheating or what are the forged documents that were used for the purpose of cheating.

9. lt is a case wherein the petitioner had indulged in facilitating sale and purchase of land in between two persons and the Company where the petitioner was working had nothing to do 4 with the p ots. Assuming that a customer whrt agrproached the Company rvhere the petitioner was working, has diverte,d and the plot of othrrrs, was sold to him, it does not amount to ary criminal offencer as; arlleged. At most, the conduct an,j the a ls of the petitior'e' u rIe prejudicial to the business int€.resl; of the Company, fr>r which reason, their services coulc be tern rnated '0 'rhe petitioner, while working with :he 3on,pany had done busl ress of selling and purchasing plot. Nor e of the persons, uihc have sold the land or purchased the land are made as witnesse s, to the present case. The persons to r,vhom the AGPAs, \(er: given are neither accused nor witnesses. Only on the basrs oI certain registered transaction docurnenls, w hich have nothing to cc' with the properties of the Company, the petitioner cannot be cli'ected to face criminal trial and ro useful purpose would he s() 1/ed 11 ltccordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed and the prlceedings against the petitioner/itccused No.2 in C C.Ncr lll2 of 2016 and 569 of 2016 on the file of XVll Additional tlhief lVletropolitan [/lagistrate Hvderabad at Nampally, are hereby quashed 5 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/- P PONNA KRISH ASSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XVll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally 2. The station House Officer Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to SRI VISHVESHWAR RAO, A'G', Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ADK -a j ! { HIGH COIJI?.7 DATED:01 1A712025 -:ilE si .A ,-a. ( COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.'12530 and 12514 ot 2O23 r I 12 iljl 208 ..../. ALLOWINGTHE BOTH CRLps Iyl 7 l I l I : I I i i I