High Court · 2025

Sri. Yeragudi RajeevReddy, S/o. yeragudi Chinnappa Reddy, Aged 68 years, occ. Business, Rl/o. pot No.A2.t, c21: B-2-2g3lB2tFlNA, ziicil, Cooferate Film Nagar, NearApollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1 2 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. Ch- Murali Krishna, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Aged 4l years, Occ. Eenadu Sub-Editor, R/o. H.No.16-108/ 101, Parvathi Residency, Srikrishna Nagar, Dilshuk Nagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 C.C.No.239B of 2023 on the file of Honorable XIV Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section s28 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to srAY all further proceedings including the personal appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in c.c.No.2399 of 2023 on the file of Honorable XIV Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, pending disposal of main criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri B vamshidhar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1 . and of Sri Akkam Eshwar Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER ../ .a THE HON,BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTT CRIMINAL PETITION No.15423 OF 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for shor: tsNSS') by petitioner/ accused No.1 to quash the proceedings, against him in C.C.No.2398 of 2023 on the file of XIV Adclitional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr. B. Vamshidhar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. Perused the material on record

3. On the basis of complaint, FIR was registered bearing No.77 of 2016 dated 25.O1.2016 under Section 42C) of IpC. 4 . It is the specific grievance of respondent No.2 that after receiving a phone call from the staff of Country Club, the complainant went to take membership proposed by Country Club. If respondent No.2 was to pay Rs.1,65,000/, he would get a site at Amaravati, 20 grams Gold, plane ticket for loreign ) JAK. J cRl.P l-i4ll 2014 .. \ countries and Rs.l0,OO,000/- Insurance policy and 7 days stay in Five Star Hotel. On the sarne day, respondent No.2 paid an amount of Rs.54,000 /- and gave a cheque of Rs. 1,1 1,OOO/-. It is further averred in the complaint that after going home, he had gone through the papers and he noticed that the conditior-rs were not as stated. That he called to his sister and was informed that she paid Rs.2,30,OOO/- and was cheated.

5. It is further averred irr the complaint that he called one T. Santosh to return the amount and was asked to come to Club and that when he reached there, 'I'. Santosh, V. Vamshi Krishna, Nagaraju arrd other persons abused him and pushed him. Hence the complaint.

6. Complaint is lodged on 25.01.2016. Charge sheet came to be filed on 02.11.2022 under Section 42O of IPC and statements were recorded. The case is at summons stage. 7 . It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the complaint does not reflect the name of petitioner/ accused No. i and that there are no overt acts attributed to accused No.1 and that inspite of not being named in the complaint, a charge sheet is filed and the petitioner is shown as accused No. 1. It is \ -/ 3 JAK, J CRLP r5423_2024 further submitted that petitioner/ accused No. I was not awa.re of the transaction entered between the Company and respondent No.2. Hence, the proceedings 1n C.C.No.2398 of 2023 on the file of XIV Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, be quashed

8. ,{t page No.32 of the material documents, a D.D.No.965908 drau,n on Axis Bank is seen, it is issued in the name of one Ch. Murali Krishna for an amount of Rs.54,0OO/_, a refund voucher No.3294gO is annexed at page No.31 .

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/State contends that perusal of the entire record discloses that respondent No.2 approached Country Club and accused No.1 is the Managing Director. That the scheme was by Country Club, that upon investigation, it r.r,as found that accused- No.I was aware of the scheme and was trying to cheat. That what is reflected in the charge sheet is only after investigation. It is further submitted that it is not a fit case for interference and the proceedings be permitted to continue.

10. Heard the counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 4 \...j \1 JAK, J CRLP 15421 202.1 - t

11. FIR came to be iodged on 25 01.2016. In the complaint, it is stated that incident occurred oo 27.12.2015, there is a delay of more than 25 days in iiling the complaint. There is no explanation offered for the delay in filing the complaint.

12. In the complaint, it is stated that respondent No.2 approached Country Club and paid an amount of Rs.54,0OO/ and issued a cheque of Rs.1,11,000/_ totaling to Rs.1,65,000/_. It is further averred that respondent No.2 received information from his sister, that she rvas cheated and on that the respondent No.2 approached the staff of Country Club and asked for return of the amount. That T. Santosh, V. Vamshi Krishna, Nagaraju abused and pushed. No averment or statement is made in the entire complaint with regard to complicity ol petitioner/accused No.1' nor it is averred that he had knowledge of the transaction. petitioner/ accused No. 1 is the Managing Director of Country Club. In the statements recorded by Police, there are no averments with regard to the involvement nor knowledge of petitioner/accused No.1. What is stated in the statement before the police is exact replica of what is reflected in the complaint. In the charge sheet, name of ) JAK. J CRLP t5423 2024 petitioner/ accused No. 1, along with emptoyees, is reflected that they were planning to cheat many persons under the guise of such schemes. In the charge sheet, it is stated that certain other persons were also cheated. But, no narrres are shown. On a perusal of the entire record, it can be inferred that Section 42O of IPC gets attracted only when there is in<lucement to defraud with dishonest intention since inception and there should be mens rea at the time of inducement. No such ingredients forthcoming from the entire record. No explanation for delay is offered, amount is repaid.

13. During the course of submissions, it is brought to the notice of this Court that at Paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit, respondent No.2 stated that he had received the entire amount and that he has no claim against ar:cused. The . following are the contents of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 / compiainant: "I submit that after filing of the complatnt the accused has send the entire amount paid by me ald I have a-lso received the entire amount as such I have no claim against the accused and above criminal petition shall be quashed again st the accused." ( t( I 6 ]AI(, J CRLP 15421 2024

14. In view of the averments made by respondent No.2 at Paragraph No.4, this Court is of the considered opinion that as respondent No.2 himself stated that he does not have any claim against pe titioner/ accused, there would not be any justification for continuance of the proceedings. i

15. For the aforesard reasons, continuance of the proceedings in C.C.No.2398 of 2023 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, would be abuse of process of law, and are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. 1 6. With the above observations, this Criminat petition is ailowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand c1o sed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- B. G. VYJAYANTHI SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad' 2. The Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station' Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRI B Vamshidhar Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Akkam Eshwar, Advocate[OPUC] 0 5. Two cc to Public Prosecutor High court of Telangana Hyderabad [oUTl

6. Two CD CoPies PSNBIP.SL I t 1l HIGH COURT DATED:03/04/2025 lHE S 14 .)'i^ \ /.. o- 3, lE JUlt 206 (r(' * t)€ St)4TC'ir ORDER CRLP.No.15423 of 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED 06