The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High court of Telangana, Hyderabad. ...Respondent No.1/Complainant 2. Mr.Sarin Katta, S/o K.V. Reddy, Aged about 49 years, Occ Business, Director, SARK Nsquare Private Limited, having its office at A-122.3rd floor, Road No.70, Journalilst Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. R/ o. Villa No. D-12, Rolling Hills, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-500032 ...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 quash the Charge sheet in CC No.14233 oI 2024 pending on the file of Xll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate @ Nampally, Hyderabad also to grant any other or further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that n the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitior the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including persc r al appearance of the petitioners/A't to A3in CC No.14233 ol 2024 pending on th : file of Xll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate @ Nampally, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on fror hearing, upon perusinr; the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurr;nts of Sri Golamaru Venkata Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the t espondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER i t ! ! I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14985 ot 2025 Date:2g.12.2025 Between: Atluri Naveen Reddy and two others .. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another ORDER: ... Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.14233 of 2024 on the file of Xll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for tlte offences under Sections 420. 465, 467,468 and 471 read with 34 lPC.

2. Heard Sri G. Venkat Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State. 2 ETD,J Crl.P. No.119A5 ol 2025

3. The case of the prosecution is that t 3 petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3 have cheated the de fact< complainant's company to a tune of Rs.26.50 crores by prepar ng fake Board Meeting Resolution and by forging the signature f lhe de facto complainant and by using the same, the pelitior ers have sold several plots to third parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has s-r lmitted that the petitioners never forged the Board Resolution as al sged by the de facto complainant. He further submitted that the r harge sheet is silent as to the allegations against the petitione'r ; and that the prosecution could not collect any identity of the allet ed third parties and that there is no allegation against the petitione'r; that the funds were diverted into petitioner No.1's account. He tr rther submitted that the prosecution failed to show any mater al against the petitioners to prove that they forged the signatures of lhe de facto complainant and that the matter is purely of civil tature, but it is given a criminal cloth to settle the scores on civil sic't and that just to harass the petitioners, the present complaint has t een initiated by lhe de facto complainant and LWs.2 and 3. He fr rther submitted that\four other FlRs were lodged against the perl tioners bearing grudge against them and out of the said FlRs, FIF Nos.2 ol 2023 a ! i I i , 3 EfD,J C.l.P. Ho.14965 ot 20Zs and 62 of 2023 were closed by the lnvestigating Officer stating .Lack of Evidence", but the same lnvestigating Officer has filed the present case though it is based on the similar allegations and thus, the lnvestigation officer acted in collusion with the de facto comprainant. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. Learned Additional public prosecutor has submitted that there are strong allegations against the petitioners that they have forged the signatures of the de facfo complainant and registered the plots in the names of third parties and have diverted the funds to their own accounts. He further submitted that the computers with which such fraud has been committed, have been seized during the course of investigation and that all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are triable issues and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6 Perused the record.

7. A perusal of the record discloses that the de facto complainant and petitioner l{o.1 have their own separate companies and that they have started two joint venture companies i.e. Sark N Square Private Limited and Sark N Square projects private Limited 4 EfD,J C.l.P. No-11985 ol 2025 and both of them are Directors of the said Joint Ver lure Companies (JV Companies) and their own separate c!nr1 r611iss are the Shareholders in the said JV Companies. While r o, the de facto complainant got an extent of Acs.5.00 gts., of land or development of housing pro.ject at Nadergul Village, L.B. Nagar in the month of March, 2021 and another extent of Acs.10.l ) of land for development of the housing project at Ko rdakal Village, Shankerpally, Ranga Reddy District in April, 20:2 and both the projects were taken up by the JV Companies. Sul sequently, both the JV Companies started multiple projects. The erl re operations of accounts, bank transactions, registrations, collectio ts, agreements, receipts, etc., were handled by petitioner No.1 rnd other staff members. The OTPs are also shared to the mol ile of petitioner No 1. The collections made were supposed to be us ld for payments to the landlords But, taking the advantage of lis position, the petitioner No 'l has purchased lands and got th: n registered in favour of his own company i e. N Square Developer ; LLP by paying the amount from the Joint Venture Companies acc( unt, without the knowledge of the de faclo complainant. To proi) tre the land at Natura Project, Chevella, the petitioner No.1 he s made online transfer of an amount of Rs.6.00 crores and Rs I .00 crores and Rs.1 00 crore and further to purchase Kadawada i nd at Chevella, 5 Ero,J C.l.P. No.119e5 ol 2OZt he made another online transaction of an amount of Rs.2.75 crores. The details of the said account numbers and the onrine transaction are also portrayed in the charge sheet. B. The petitioner No.1 has transferred an extent of Acs.7.30 gts., of land at Regadidosavada, Chevella initially in favour of petitioner No.2 (friend of petitioner No.1)/accused No.2, who in turn has transferred the same to petitioner l,lo.3 (paternal uncle of petitioner No.1). Further, the petitioner No.1 has transferred an amount of Rs.76,70,000/- to the account of LW.12 and joined in their venture as shareholders. lt is alleged that by forging the Board Resolutions, the said acts of purchase was done by the petitioner No.'1 . To ascertain the element of forgery, the prosecution has sent the specimen signatures of the de facfo complainant along with the questioned documents to the Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratory (TSFSL) and has collected the report.

9. Thus, there exists a prima facle case against the petitioners. It is further borne out by the record that FSL report is also collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation. The said documentary and oral evidence needs to be tested during the course of trial. The online transactions can also be subjected to scrutiny by the trial court. Hence, it is not proper to quash the proceedings 6 EfD,J Cd.P- No. 9a5 ol m25 against the petitioners at this stage. The petition rcks merit and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand r: rsed. I SD/. A TI ASS S GOWRI SHANKAR ETANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY/' 'becrton oFFlcER To

1. The Xll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate At Nampal 1 Hydgrabad.' i. rt" st"tion House officer, lNsp Admin (DD) police slz:ion, Hyderabad. 5. f*" CCs to tne Public Prosecutor, High Court for the s;t rte of Telangana' at a. O'ne CC to Sri Golamaru Venkata Reddy, Advocate [O 'UC] 5. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad. [OUT] SvVABK &4:, HIGH COURT DATED:2911212025 ORDER CRLP.No.14985 of 2025 l rfHES ( JA[ 2026 z .J ;3 \t+R \i r DISMISSING THE CRLP :fKs l.r f ,12-6