The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana at 2. Lakki Reddy Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Bali Reddy Aged about 45 years Occ.Advocate Hyderabad Saidellipuram village, Madhira Mandal Khammam drstflct. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS., praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to C.C.No 706 of 2025 On the file of Prl. Junior Civil J udge-cum-J ud icial Magistrate of First Class, triladhira, Khammam District and quash the same in so far as the petrtioner /Accused No. '1 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case. 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 lo grant Stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner /A1 in C.C.No 706 ot 2025 On the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira, Khammam district pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M Janardhan Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and none appears for Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER , -Eri;,--*r=!.r-?-* THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITON No.14288 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner e ccused No.'l seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.706 of 2() 15 on the file of Judicial Magrstrate of First Class, Madhira, Khanr ram District, registered for the offences under Sections 318(4) rear with 3(5) of BNS 2 Heard Sri M. Janardhan Rao, iearned cc t nsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learne I Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No 1-State 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has subnr :ted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are Advocate I and in fact there was a dispute with regard to the fees pertaining r a particular case and due to the said dispute, the present complain is filed with false allegations He further submitted that the pe iioner never promised the de facto complainant for providing any jo r to his wife and that he never entertained any dishonest intention, , rnd thus the ingredients of Sections 318(4) of BNS are not made orr against the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed to quash the procee,i ngs against the petitioner \ 2 EfD,J ctr-P. No.11243 0t 2025

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner-accused No.1 is alleged to have collected an amount of Rs.3,00,0001 from the de facto complainant on the pretext of providing a job to the wife of the de faclo complainant, but failed to provide the job. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint disclose that the petitioner and accused No.2 are in acquaintance with the de facto complainant for about an year and out of the said acquaintance, on 28.11.2024 they approached the de facto complainant by stating that a vacancy for Teacher job is available in a reputed government aided school and if an amount of Rs.10,00,0001 is paid, they would see that his wife would be given appointment to the said post, whereupon, the de facto complainant stated that he would pay the amount only after getting the appointment letter. Subsequently, the petitioner cited urgency by stating that the daughter (accused No.3) of accused No.2 needs to go abroad for higher studies and that an amount of Rs.3,00,0001 is required immediately and therefore, the de facto complainant has transferred Rs.3,00,000/- through IMPS on

28.11.2024 from his SBI account to the account of accused No.3. Subseg.rently, he realized that the accused had not provided the job j ETD,J Crt.P. No.142eO ol2a25 to his wife and when he finally insisted to return l- i , amount, the accused started evading him and refused to return le money and further they threatened him with dire consequences. 7 The allegations prima facie point out the lffence under Section 318(4) of BNS against the petitioner. The : aid section is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference " 3'18. Cheating: (1) xxxx (2 ) xixx (3) xxxx (4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly in i person deceived to deliver any property to any p3rs make alter or destroy the whole or any part of r securty or anythlng wh{ch is signed or sealed, anl ca|able of being converted rnto a valuable securt purrLshed with rmpflsonment of either description a wh ch n'ray extend to seven years, and shall also t: ces the )n or to valua b le which is shal be a term I abllr to B. The prime allegation is that the petitioner ar I the accused No.2 induced the de facto complainant to pay i n amount of Rs.3,00,0001 to accused No.2. The contention c' the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has nc I received the said amount and that he just introduced accused No.1l therefore, the ingredients of Section 318(4) of BNS do not attra { against the petitioner. But, since the allegations points out tha accused No.1 4 ETO,J C.tP. No lesa or 2o;s has induced the de facto complainant to pay his money of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of accused No.2, the ingredients of Section 318(a) of BNS are prima facie made out. The prosecution has arso collected the statements of account. Therefore, the truth or otherurrise in the allegations can be culled out after a full_fledged trial. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court, provided he is represented by a counsel on every date of heanng and he shall appear before the trial court as and when his presence is required during the course of trial. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-B.REKHA RANI A SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIONOFFICER To,

1. The Prl. Junior Civil J udge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira, Khammam District

2. The Station House Officer, Madhira Rural Police Station, Khammam District.

3. One CC to Sri M- Janardhan Rao , Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana (our) 1,. 5 Two CD Copies lW..- " BJLB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2411112025 OROER CRLP.No.14288 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF /:l ')!' TASt Ic o(J I 0 t .:. - +,/ t ! I I {t/' l0