The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing :l e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argJ nents of Sri E V PUSHPA VARDHAN ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt. ihalini Saxena the Assistant Pub c Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Responl )nt No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA. CRIMINAL PEIITION No.15892 of 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners / accused Nos. I to 3 in FIR.No.551 of 2023 before the Inspector of Police EOW, Team X, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 23,24, 25,4O5, 4O9 ' 415, 418, 42O' 425,427, 463,464,465,467,46a,4O3, 120b read with 34 of IPC, and 156(3) of Cr.PC.

2. The trrief facts of the case are that on 23-12-2023 a camplaint was frled by Sri Vakada Tirumala Rao, Managing Partner of M/s SST Builders LLP and M/s Sri Sai Tirumala Constructions Pvt. Ltd., against (1) M/s Aditya Construction Company India Pvt. Ltd., and (2) its Director Sri Thota Satyanarayana. The complainant stated that an MoU dated 08- Og-2O21 was executed for construction of H-Block in Aditya Empress Towers, Annex-H Block, at Puranbagh, Tolichowki, Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad, where A1 and A2 owned 19,283 sq. yards of land. The complainant commenced construction as t 2 per the MoU and raised bills, hut A1 and A2 l aid only part amounts and delayed the remaining payments. lr s alleged that A I and A2 registered 25 flats in Block-H in avour of the complainant company through various registert 1 sale deeds, but subsequently, the complainant discor, < red through Encumbrance Certilicates that all the said 25 flzL s had already been mortgaged to Punjab National Bank Housinp Finance Ltd., without disclosure, thereby cheating the corc :lainant and causing huge financial loss. It is further alle ged that the accused threatened the complainant, obstructec access to the construction site, and illegally attempted to sell - maining flats to third parties. The complainant submitted a cognizable complaint dated 29-lO-2O23 to SHO, Film Nagar J 'S, along with postal acknowledgment No. RNO445O6175IN, but t re SHO failed to register an FIR despite the complaint disclos i rg cognizable offences, allegedly due to collusion with the accu I ed. Aggrieved by imptcation in the case, the petitioners hled -his Criminal Petition.

3. Heard Sri EV.Pushpavardhan, learned counsel for petitioners, and Smt Shalini Saxena, leatned A:;r istant public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent - State. 3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioflers submitted that FIR No.551 of 2023, which has been registered on the complaint of commercial the 2nd respondent, is a clear attempt to give a criminal colour to a pureiy civil dispute arising out Memorandum of Understanding dated 08.03.202 i between two companies. He contended that all allegations relating to alleged cheating or misappropriation are baseless, inasmuch as the company has cleared all its loans and has also obtained No Due Certihcates from Punj ab National Bank Housing Finance Ltd' due to which the invocation of Sections 4O9,467 and 468 IPC turns to be wholly misconceived, particularly when the funds involved are not public funds so as to attract Section 409 IPC' He averred that the FIR, at best, reflects a breach of contractual obligations and falls squarely within the realm of civil litigation' and therefore continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. karned counsel for petitioner incessantly contended that 5 several suits, including commercial suits and defamation actions between the same parties concerning the very same are pending before cause of action and the same properties, competent Civil Courts, wherein orders of status-quo and 4 restraint orders against alienation have already reen granted. He averred that in spite of the subsisting orders 1 assed by this Court in multiple writ and criminal petitions direl ing the police not to take coercive steps and not to harass the : :titioners, the police have illegally arrayed Petitioner No.3 as ac :used only to pressurize the petitioners and to circumvent ea r ier protection granted by this Court. The registration of a secr,: Ld FIR on the same set of facts (FIR No.l33 of 20241 after FIR I r .551 of 2023, filed by the same complainant, is impermissible, and asserted that there are several precedents which categoric rlly held that successive FIRs based on the same trii Lsaction are unconstitutional and amount to abuse of I :gal process. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow this crimir al petition.

6. On the other hand, the learned As; stant Public Prosecutor, vehemently, opposed the submiss r ns made by learned counsel for petitioners, and contended tha , the material collected during investigation would clearly estz.l lish that the accused company and its Directors (A 1 to AI 1 dishonestly concealed the fact that 25 flats pertaining to )lock-H were mortgaged with Punjab National Bank Housing rinance Ltd., and despite such mortgage being in subsistencr: the accused a 5 \... induced the complainant to enter into the MoU and subsequently registered the same 25 flats in favour of the complainant, thereby causing wrongful loss and wrongful gain' She averred that the Encumbrance Certificates reveal that the properties continued to be under hypothecation even after registration, and though the petitioners contend to have later failed to submit the No-Objection cleared the loans, theY complainant or io the concerned Certihcates eiLher to the lamented that such deliberate Registration Office. She concealment squarely attracts the offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC, as dishonest concealment of facts amounts to deception, punishable under Sectio n 42O IPC' in addition to other offences invoked in the FIR' 7 . She asserted that the police are dutlr-bound to act where criminality is prima facie disclosed, and the pendency of civil petitions does not bar suits or issuance of orders in writ investigation into cognizable offences only upon a detailed complaint supported by documentary evidence, and the Investigating Offrcer has strictly followed the The FIR was registered directionsissuedbythisCourtinCrl.P.No.lg2l2024,including issuance of Section 41-A Cr'P C notices' She divulged that the I L t l !l -t 6 transfer of investigation to the EOW, Cyberat,z d, was done pursuant to administrative directions, and no r oercive steps have been taken so far. She submitted that thr: record would show that petitioner No.3 played an active role in the transactions, having signed bank resolutions es Managing Director, and has failed to cooperate with invest i explicit judicial directions. Therefore, prayed t ;ation despite -ris Court to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions ancl on perusal of the material placed on record, it is noted that t re pctitioners had earlier Iiled Crl.P.No.192 of 2024 cha! enging their implication in the very same FIR, i.e., FIR No.19!l of 2024. This eourt, by order dated lO.Ol.2024, disposed of thr said petition granting relief of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The petitioners thereafter carried the matter to the Hcr 'b1e Supreme Court by way of SLP, which, as pointed out tr. the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, was dismissed as witl drawn and is not pending h'djudication. It is further adrnitted th rt the present petition is the second quash petition hled seekin,: to quash the same FIR. Therefore, the primar5r issue that arise I is rvhether a i : I I 7 second quash petition is maintainable in respect of the same FIR g. The learned counsel for petitioners contended that since civil disputes are pending between the parties and interim orders have been obtained therein, continuation of the criminal case is not marntainable. However, the record reveals that the civil suits were instituted subsequent to registration of the criminal case and the interim orders were obtained after dismissal of the earlier criminal petition. Hence, the pendency of civil proceedings cannot constitute a valid ground to quash the criminal case in this second petition. There are no merits in this matter, and the same is liable to be dismissed'

10. Accordingly, this Crirninal Petition is dismissed' Miscellaneous applicalions, if aly pending, shall also stand closed. SD/- L LAKSHMI BABU EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, The XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' Hyderabad' Hyderabad 1 District. 2 The SHO EOW, Team X, CCS, Hyderabad

3. The SHO Film Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to SRl. E V PUSHPA VARDHAN Advocate IOPl C] 5. One CC to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OPL ( :] 6. Two CD Copies -floo I PK/PSL w HIGH COURT DATED:2711112025 \ \ CRLP.No.15892 ot 2024 1 t o o 3! :: i : \ \ t -i t' _c d .).. J: * '1: CR]MINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED. ,-\'A^ \{---r r a #\e' i I I I I