The High Court · 2025

Hayathnagar, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of T.S ...RESPONDENT No.1

2. Sri Ramasani Janna Reddy, S/o. Venkat reddy, Aged about 60 years, Rl/o. Plot No. 33, H.No 9-33, Prajay Gulmohar, Kuntloor Village, Hayathnagar, R.R. District ...RESPONDENT No.2/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT 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 call for the proceedings in C.C. 257 of 2025 on the file of the Hon'ble XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Hayathnagar and to Quash the same. l.A. NO: 2 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 grant a Stay of all for the proceedings in C.C . 257 of 2025 on the file of the Hon'ble XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Hayathnagar. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BHARATH REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri .Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER =ry THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.14285 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.257 of 2025 on the file of learned XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, registered for the offence under Section 318(4) read with 3(5) of BNS.

2. Heard Sri G. Bharath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter is purely of civil in nature. The Management of Prajay Gulmohar Association Gated Community Utsava Committee (for short, 'Utsava Committee') had been regularly conducting the Ganesh Festival. He further submitted that a new body is elected for the management of the said Utsava Committee and in spite of the same, a false case is foisted against the petitioners herein. He further submitted that the ingredients under section 318(4) of BNS does not attract against the petitioners herein, even if the alQgations in the complaint are taken as true on their face value. r t: I I I t I I i 2 ETD,J Crl.P.No.l4285 of 2025 He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present c.c. against the petitioners herein. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relied on the judgments of the Honourable Apex court in state of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lar and othersl and Madhavrao Jiwajirao scindia and others v. sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others2.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners got transferred the amounts of the said Utsava committee into their own accounts, even after their term getting completed. Thus, the petitioners are facing allegations under section 318(4) of BNS. He further submitted that the truth or otherwise in the allegations need to be tested during the course of trial. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal petition.

5. Perused the record

6. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant is a member of said Utsava committee and the utsava committee has been performing the Ganesh festival and bonalu celebrations every year by cotlecting donations and that irrespective of the ' t99z scc (Cri)426 ' tggg scc (c-oz:,a ,/ / rq+:: J ETD,J Crl.P.N'o. 14285 of 2025 management of association, they were being continued as Utsavsa Committee members and were being entrusted with the responsibility of conducting these festivals. They used to deposit the surplus amounts into the HDFC bank account opened in the name of said Utsava Committee. But, without their knowledge, the petitioners herein have fraudulently got transferred the existing amount in Utsava Committee account into their own accounts. Therefore, they have complained to HDFC Bank and have also lodged the present complaint against the petitioners.

7. Section 318(4) of BNS is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: "318. Cheating - (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) xxx (4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

8. ln Bhajan Lal's case (supra 1), it was held that where the allegations made in the First lnformation Report or the complaint, \ 4 ETD,J Crl.P.No.l4285 of 2025 even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or othenruise to secure the ends of justice. But, in the present case, prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Thus, the said case law is not applicable to the case on hand.

9. ln Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia's case (supra 2), it was held that the Court has to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it is at a preliminary stage. ln the present case, the allegations pima facie_point out the offence under Section 318(4) of BNS, as the ,1 ' 5 ETD,J Crl.P.No. 14285 of 2025 petitioners are alleged to have transferred the amounts existing in the Utsava Committee account into their own account. The said statements of account are also collected during the course of investigation. The concerned Branch Manager of HDFC Bank is listed as LW.6 in the charge sheet. Therefore, the said case law does not apply to the case on hand. The truth or othenryise in the allegations can be tested during the course of trial. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court provided they are represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial court whenever their presence is required during the course of trial. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A.PRATHIMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// \ To,

1. The xlv Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, cyb^erabad at Hayathnagar' i. 1r" siation H*r" om""t, Hayathnagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate.

3.OneCCtoSRlBHARATHREDDY,AdvocatelOPUCl 4. Two CCs to snt puellc pRosEcuToR, High court Buildings, High court at HyderabadfortheStateofTelangana,Hyderabad[oUT] ,5. Two CD CoPies. I 4 . 'i:*:lf.;1qP:T*rl.a. zL1"iEEEHHtE -.*!.**-=a..*.6.#'4:'?frrt:r-l-1:,-:i+--p";q7;so11;.a-' I t HIGH COURT ETDJ DATED:2511112025 T .s s q () LL * ORDER { CRLP.No.1 4285 of 20 i";rl,) * CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF.