The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l\/emorandum of - Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla. the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI I\NGANA AT HYDERABAD THE |'iON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA Dt: /l EADA CRIMINAL P ETITION No.14455 OF 20 DATE:30-1 2-2025 Betwee n: Dr. S Naresh And .. Petitioner The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Pubtic Prosecutor, Through L.B. Nagar Police Station, High Court of Telangana State, Hyderabad and another ilespondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner- rccused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crire No406 of 2025 of L.B. Nagar Police Station, Rachakonda, regti;tered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 470 i nd 471 read with 34 I P.C

2. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned cottt s;el for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learrr:'l Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. 2 E ID.J Crl l,.No.l4.lr5 o f :0:.5

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a practising Doctor. The Orange Hospital (Sreshta Orange Hospital) at L B Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, was being run by Dr. B Durga Rani, M. Ramesh Babu and others and the said hospital was purchased under partnershrp vrde MOU, dated 19.08.2022, by Dr. A Karthik, Dr. IM. Kranthi Kumar, Dr. S Vanaja Rani (wife of the petitioner) and lhe de facto complainant, for an amount of Rs.4,49,60,000/_ and the entire amount was paid. Thereafter, amendments were made to the partnership deed and possession of the said Hospital was taken over by the partners viz., Dr. A. Karthik, Dr. M. Kranthi Kumar, S. Shobha (mother of the petitioner), Ramini Rajitha and the de faclo comprainant. whire so, the petitioner herein, who is the son of S. Shoba, along with Dr A Karthik opened accounts with AXIS Bank and lClCl Bank and got the cheque power and mentioned the name of one S. Vikram, who is the brother of the petitioner, to get the OTPs The petitioner came into partnership officially on 24.03.2023 on the retirement of his mother i.e., S. Shobha. While so, the petitioner and one Uday Kiran Ramini, who is the son of one of the partners i.e., Ramini Rajitha, with an urterior motive and with a mala fide intention conspired and collucled with each Ir I D.J i I I'.No I4155 rl 202i other, so as to swindle the amounts of Sreshta C I tnge Hospital and hatched a plan to get loans from the financial t s;titutions and got created a fabricated Partnership Deed an 1 forged the signature of the de faclo complainant on all the lo l r applicalions and the fabricated Partnership Deed and obtained )ans, thereby causing loss to the Hospital. On 28.03.2023, the t,, titioner made a busrness agreement and designated himsell as Financial Director and that he is responsible for managing rr the financial transactions of the Hospital. lt is alleged that the p. itioner, being the Financial Director, cheated the de facto co. Srlainant and other partners and transferred the funds of the H );pital into his personal accounts. When the de facto complainar t insisted the petitioner to furnish the accounts, he has failed l> furnish the same and threatened the de faclo complain: rt with dire consequences. The petitioner also caused ry161r; Lrl loss to all the partners and that the CIBIL score of lhe de fac ( complainant has also gone down. Therefore, the present compl : rrt is filed

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner subnr 1 erd that the petitioner being one of the partners in the partne:,hip firm has obtained loans and thus, has not committed a"r / 'r''/rong. He further submitted that earlier on 04.11.2024, a r;r rnplaint was "F]o?i ,, n *".,r0r. o made by the wife of the petitioner against the de facto complainant and others and subsequenily, in the year 2025, the present case is filed to compel lhe petitioners for compromising the said matter. He further submitted that the allegations in the complaint do not attract the offences alleged against the petitioner herein He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the petrtioner herein. 5 Learned Addrtional public prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegatrons against the petitioner. The petitioner being a partner of the firm aileged to have fabricated the documents by forging the signature of the de facto complainant and obtained roans in the name of hospitar and utirised for other plrposes He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the criminar petition. 6 The allegation s prima facie point out the offence of forgery. The contention of the petittoner's counsel is that the offences under Sections 406 and 420 l.p.C. do not go together. The investigation is stiil in progress and which of the offences wourd attract against the petitioner herein can be culled out only after a full-fledged triar. The petitioner's counser contends that the matter is purely of civil in nature, but the allegation of forgery E II),J I l'No l4+5i ol202i involves criminal element and hence, launcn r g of criminal ) prosecution cannot be found fault with. lt is a sr borne out by record that the wife of the petitioner herein h: r filed a case against respondent No 2-de faclo complainait vide Crime No.1281 of 2024 of Vanasthalipuram Fr lice Station, Rachakonda Now, the present case is filed by lhe de racto complainant against the petitioner herein. Thus. tr: petitioner's counsel contends that the present case is filed as. lounter olast case to settle the scores with the petitioner herein The truth or otherwise in the allegations is yet to be unravelled S,ince there is a case and a counter case pending between both te.parties, rt is not proper to quash the proceedings in one case r i- ile the other rs kept pending, as was held by the Honourable , ,ltex Court in Punit Beriwala v. The State of NCT of Delhi tnd othersl Hence, it is opined that the Criminal Petition lacks r^ :rit.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismisse: Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall tand closed. \ Xri Lirt La.lc C5C) ioY SD/- S. I/ ALLIKARJUNA RAO AS:i STANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' To, 1 The llAddl. Judicial Magistrate of Frrst Class cum \ \ I Vd JECTION OFFICER c I , r nior Crvil Judge, at LB Nagar, Rangareddy District 2 The Station House Officer. Police Station. L B Nagar ll rrlgareddy District 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stat: r i Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) w

4. One CC to SRI 5 Two CD Copies RAPOLU BHASKAR Advocate (OPUC) TPK/PSL Y" I HIGH COURT DATE D:30/1 212025 )i TI5i-_ o() ( t: r I * Cr .--'_:.).---:- .../ ORDER CRLP.No.14455 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISI;ED ^(.:b dY 5T ';t!::t: