The High Court · 2025

.of 2015 0n the fire of the Judiciar First crass 1 flti;tii;ltX,,til,ffi,.jJfli..j,n,r phajge, ased 2e years, occ Serf Ernproyed, Gopale, S/o. Ramchandra Gopale, aged 2g years, Crcc Self Nikkam, aged 2e years, occ Setf Emptoyed, R/o ,ll5flTrr,fl,?"oshok

2. Devidas Employed 3. Jayesh N Mumbai, (All havino corr *a"#hhl:,,Jiil#iEr?:.f,xJ:i,?,,l,,i;[ii?ffi t"f si]t",ti:dr"J AND ...petitioner/Accused Nos.1,,l3 & 21

1. The State Of Tetangana. Eep py p.p, rep OV ig,flcg, BDL ghanoor, Merjak, throuqh its pubric eiosecutoi H[2r'' cbr"{oTiro,cature at Hyderabad, frlr the State of Telangarra and the StriJor-nLlnij traoesh ' ryi ftT,i",%iEi,;:'?:ffs:ijl ,f,s"l,o^,oq:?-,' p,ot N 17s, prrase-2, ,filli,jt:t%l: resisrered oni"e',r r ooie/b-_e-io, i;jnffi A",,4 !:,iiilprffi; 500032, Dutv rep Oy- iti- lrfairlg;,yg,,,oiru.tor Nikhit Ja_gani, S/o. Bheemaiahjag'ani aseoTs v"irr,' ilIHrHn"... ...RespondenUDe-Facto Compl,rinant Petition under sr>ctron 4g2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorancum or orouna. ciri#i"ir petition, the High couii ,,rv be pleased to ca, fc r "i ^,.," i"."ror i"rr'ii"g"'io orders dated 4-s_2016 in crl'Rev pet No ll of 2c16 o" tn"Jir" oi"t;: 3d of the Judge, Famirv .ourt_ Cum-VIl Additional District and Sessions .luO-g; Medak at Sangareddv made confirming the orders oateo 20-1-2016;;.iMdiio.543 0f 2015 inc.c.No.ri92 0f 2015 0n the fire of the .ourt of the Additionri .lro-i"irr r4agistrate of First orass, Sangareddy and ouash rhe same further arowino *,u crt.up rvo.543 0f 2c15 in '-'\rrvr qrrvYrlrrv C.C No.392 of 2O1S m pr,ryJroi t.A. NO:1OF2017(CR LPMP. NO : 12142 oF 2017l petition under section -4g2 0f .cr.p c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of-Ground. or cri,Iilli petition, the High court may be preased to qrant stav of ar -furth"r p,o"uJrngs'incruding the appearance c,t the petitioners in c.c.No 392 0f 2015 0n ih" fir" oi i-',-"'.lroi"i"t First crass Magislrate, Medak, Sanga Reddy District, pending airpos,f 'of-thu c,mtnal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N.Naveen Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners in both criminal Petitions and the Sri Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in both criminal Petitions and of sri B.Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 in both Criminal Petitions The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE sRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RACI CRIMI,NAL PETITION Nos.10936 and 10937 of2Ot7 COMMON ORDER: Criminal peririon No.10936 of 2Ol7 is filed by the petitioner/i a,:cused No.g and Criminal petition No.10937 of 2077 is filcd t;y the petitioners / accused Nos. 1 l, 13 and 2l aggrieved by rhe orders dated 30. ll.2O16 and 04.O5 2O16 in Crl.R.P.Nos.24 and 11 of 2016 confirrning the orders passed by t ee lcarned Judicial Magistrate of First ()lass, Sangaredd,v, dated 20.Ol,2O16 in Crl,M.p.No.543 of 2015 in C.C.No.!t92 of 20 1S, v.,here_under rhe discharge applications filcd by the petitioners/acc,sed Nos.B, 1 t, 13 and 21 were disrrrissed. The issue raised in both thc <:ases is one and the sarne. Hcnce, both the crirninal petitions are clubbecl togcther and disposed of the sarne by way of a cornlTlon or dr:r.

2. Brief facts of ttre case: Responclent No.2 filed a private cornplaint before the Judicial First Cl.rss Magistrate, Medak at Sangart:ddy stating that his cornpany, a registered start_up formerl by two young cntlcpreneurs, was incruced by 1.he petitro;rer.s and other a<.cusecl to purchas e a 2 TpD pyrolysls Oil 2 Prodr.-rction Plant for a consideration of Rs.41,9a,9OO/-. Accused No.1 is a proprietary concern clairning to be a pioneer in manufacturing $rrolysis oil plants. Accused No.2 is proprietor of accused No.1 hrrn, accused Nos.3 and 4, who are sons of accused No.2, are Directors, and acctrsed Nos.S to 22 are ernployees, who actively abetted the transactions. Frorn the very inception, the petitioners and other acclrsed dishonestly conspired to cheat respondent No.2 by rnisrepresenting the nature of their busine ss throrlgh rnultiple dubious entities and websites u,ith overlapping addresses, by issr.ring rnisleading quotations with exaggerated claims of effrciency and profitability, by delaying supply of machinery, by sending defective and substandard parts without delivering essential cornponents, and by supplying equiprnent with rnade installation and inherent defects, which cornmissioning impossible. Despite payrnent of the fr'rll sale consideration under purcl-rase order dated C5. 1O.2O 1 1, the petitioners and other accused dragged the process for ncarly 18 rnonths between March, 2Ol2 and October, 2013 with false asst.rances and partial payrnents, before The acts of the project altogether. abandoning the pctitioners and other accused thus disclose a clear 3 consplracy to cheat and dishonestly induce respo;tdent No.2 to part with money for defective plant, thereby causing wrongful losrs to respondent No.2 cornplainant and wrongful gain to ther-rselves. The petitioners filed applicatiorL i.e., Crl.M.P.No.543 of 20 15, before the learned Additional Judicial Firr;t Class Magistrate at Sangareddy, ser:king discharge thern in C.C.No.392 of 2O1S and the same was disrnissed o r 20.O I.2O16. euestioning the sarne, the petitioncr/ accused No.g filed Crl.R.p.No.2 4 ol 2016 anrl the petitioners / accused Nos.11, 13 and 2l ftled, Crl.R.p.No.11 of 20 76 berfore the learned Sessions Judge and both the said cases w:re dismissed on 30.1i.2016 and 04.OS.1lO16 respectivell,.

3. Heard NIr. N. Nzrveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Iv'Ir. B . Kiran Kurnar, learned cor-rnser for respondent i{o.2 / de facto cornplainant, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Redcly, rearnecl Assistant pubric prosecrtor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1_State.

4. Subrnission S of learned cotl nsel for the petitionr )rs: 4 .I . I-earned co u n scl submitted that the petitioners h ave not cornrnittecl any offence, much less, the alleged offences and they are c,ttly ernployees of accused No.l firrn and theSr \ ) 4 discharged their duties, which were allotted to thern There is no conspiracy between the petitioners and accused Nos'2 and 3 and there are no specillc allegations against the petitioners to attract the ingredients of Sections 42O ' 4la and 415 read with 34, 97, lO9 and 12OB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC')'

4.2. He further submitted that respondent No'2 filed a private cornplaint irnplicating the petitioners as accused by rnaking baid aliegations that they were conspirators and abettors and there is no rnaterial on record to establish any conspiracy between the petitioners and accused Nos'2 and .a

4.3. The petiLioners frled application i'e', Crl'M'P'No'543 of 2015, seeking clischarge them in C'C'No'392 of 2015' wherein, they specifically contended that respondent No'2 had not produced any material to show that the petitioners had any role in the alleged. offences' The entire allegations are levelled, against accused Nos' 1 to 4 only'

4.4. Tne learned Magistrate, witkrotlt properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioners, disrnissed the discharge application without assigning any reasons' He furtkrer str.brnitted that the learned Sessions Judge also -/ 5 failed to con.sider the grounds raised by the petitionr:rs in Crl.R.P.Nos. l,l and. 24 of 2016 and simply dismisserl the said revision petitions by confirming the orcier of the trial Courl and the sarne is contrary to law. 4.5. He alsrt submitted that now the petitioners are residing in the State of Maharashtra. By virtue of implicating thern as an accused in the present case, they are facing very difficult to attenci the Court proceedings by travelling a long distance 4.6. He lurthLer submitted thal entire complaint does not constitute an1, offence against the petitioners and also trrere is no vicarious liability. The only allegation rnade against the petitioner,/ accusecl No.g is that he sent four e-mail,s to respondent I\1o.2. Mere sending the mails bv the petrtioner / accr-l sed No.g does not constituto the a1le,ged offences, espe<:ially the petitioner/accused No.g discharl3ed his duties as an ernploycc of accused No.1 hr.m. Respondent No.2 impricated the petitioners tc, dissorve :_he disputes between him and accused No.1 llrm and accus;ed Nos.2 to 4 b5. neaking ornnibus allegations. Even according to tllg allegations made in the complaint, accused No.1 fir-rn had supplied the machinery to respondent No.2. Basi:tg 6 Llpon the allegcd defects in the rnaterial / equiprnen t supplied by accused No.I firm, respondent No'2 is not entitled to implicate the petitioners as accused, especially they are only ernployees and there is no dishonest intention on their part. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.392 of 2Ol5 against the petitioners is clear abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be qr.ashed'

4.7. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgrnents. 1 2 3 4 5 Vishnu I(urnar Shukla and another v' State of Uttar Pradesh and anotherl; Vipin Sahni and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation2; State of Orissa v- Debendra Nath Padhi3; Central Bureau of Hyderabad v. I(. Narayana Flaoa; and Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v' State of Maharashtras; Investigation, 5 Srrbrnissions of learned corrnsel No.2 for respondent I (2023) 15 scc 502 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 511 ' (zoo5) 1 scc 568 o 1zotz19 scc 512 ' (2oo8) 10 scc 394 -7 7

5.1. Per cc'ntra, learned counsel submitted thal the petitioners l-rave not disputed the l,ransacLion bel.ween accused No.I hrm and respondent No.2 and they are not disputing their relationship with accused No.1 firrn. The petltloners along with other accused with a dishrtnest intention liaudulently conspired and indu<;ed resporLdent No.2 to ptrrchase the rnachinery i.e., F)zrolysis Oil Extraction Plant, which produces 2 Ton per clay (2 apgr; oii, and he has given Rs.41,9B,9OO/_ in thc, nar.e of accused No.1 firm. I{owever, the said rnachinery supplied b1_ the petitioners and other accused is a delective one. In spite of repeated den:.ands /reqlrests made by respondent No.2 the petitioners and other accused have not taken any stef)s to rectify the sarle. The petitioners along with accused Nos.2 and 3 were present at the tirnc of purchasing the machinery ar:Ld they were well aware about the defects of the rnachine{r supplied by accused No. 1 hrm. 5 .2 . FIe furth er subrnitted that thc petitioners aiong rarlll other accusecl conspired to ensure that faulty machirtery was supplied to respondent No.2, they have made h alf_ hearted irres;ponsible attempts while instzrlling the machinery. The petitioners were present at the site o r a 8 mrrnber of occasions and accLlsed Nos'2 to 4 consprnng with the petitioners rcceived a huge amount from respondent No.2. There are specific allegations level1ed against each of ttre petitioners in the complaint' To sr-rbstantiate the allegations rnade in the cornplaint, respond.ent No.2 hled rnaterial docurnents' The petitioners fr.led discharge applicat ion, uide Crl'M'P No'543 of 2O15' withfalseallegations.LcarnedMagistratehasrightly disrnissed the dischargc aPPlication on 2C..o\.2016 by thereby, the Aggrieved reasons. giving cogent petitioner/ accr.rsed No.8 filed Crl'R'P'No'24 of 2016 and the petitioners / accused Nos'11, 13 and 21 filed Cr1'R'P'No'11 of 2016. After considering the grorlnds raised by the petitioners, the learned Sessions Jr'rdge' disrnissed tkre said criminal revision petitions. There are no grounds tcl impugned ord.ers passed by the learned interfere with the and the criminal petitions filed by the Sessions Judge petltloners are liable to be dismissed Analvsis: 6. Having considered the rival subrnissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the rnateria-l available on record, it reveals that respondent No'2 / de facto 9 cornplaint lodged a private compraint under Section 2oo of the Cr.P.C. ,tn 11 .O2.2O1,5 on the file of ther Judiciai First class Magistrate, sangareddy, wherein it is stated that accused No.1 is a proprietary concern ancl dealing with business of manufacturing p5rrolysis OiI Extracting plant and rnachinery and claims to have successlully execnte:d on a turnke-y basis, the supply, insrallation and comrnissior-ring of variotrs plants of capacrty of Onc Ton per Day (1 TPD), Two.lon per Day (2 TpD), Fivc.I.on per Dzry (5 TPD) and J'en Ton per Dry (10 TpD) plzrolysis Oil Production plants for its various customers in India as well as abroad. The allegations rnade against the petitioners are that they alotrg uzith other accused rnade a bogus sale of a Two Ton Per Day (2 TpD) $rrolysis oir production plar: t to respondent Nr>.2 for a slrrn of Rs.4 l,ga,gOO / _ and execrrted agreernents. The machinery supplied by the pctitioners and other acc:used 1o respondent No.2 is a clefective ()ne. Frorn the dat<: of inception, there is a consplracy between petitior-rers anrl accused Nos.1 to 4 and there rs a dishorLest intention to c.reat respondent No. 2 suppliecl the defe c.,ive machinery zrnd received substantial amount of Rs.41,98,OOO/ 10

7. The learned' Magistrate' after recording the staternents of respondent No'2 and after going through the documents' took cogrtizance and issued sutrrmolls to the petitioners and other accused' Subsequently' tkre petitioners approached this Court and liled Crl'P'No'62O6 of 2015 seeking to quash the proceedings in C'C'No'392 of 2015' However, ttre petitioners sought permission to withdraw the above said. crirnina-I petition with the liberty to avail a-11 the rernedies availabie to them under law including filing of the discharge petition and also pctition uncler Section 2O5 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court' Accordingly' this Court dismissed ttre Criminal Petition on 23 'l]r '2015 as withdrawn and granted liberty as sought by the petitioners' B. Thereafter, the petitioners fiied Crl'M P'No'543 of 2015 seeking to discharge tkrem from C'C'N o'392 of 2Ol5 by pleading that tkieY have no connection with accused No.1 firm' The learned Magistrate' after considering the contentions of the respective parties' Sections 227 aod 245 of Cr.P.C. and the judgments cited by both the parties' held that a pirna facie case was made out against the petitioners, as they are shown as accused and abettors of offences alleged against accusecl Nos ' 1 to 4 ar d at this l1 stagc, based on the rnaterial on record, the petitionet.s are not entitled for the relief seeking to discharge them from C.C.No.392 of 2O15. 9 No.S Aggriev:cl by the said order, the peti tioner / acc u sed filed Crl.R.p.No.24 2016 and 13 and 21 petrtroners / accused Nos. 1 1, filecl Crl.R.p.A o. I 1 of 20 16 on the f-rle of the Judge, Farnily Court-cunt VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak Distri()t at Sangareddy. The learned Sessions Judge, after considerring the allegatio:rs in the complaint and the transac:tion between the trrarties involving lakhs of rupees, herd that the petitioners, being the employees of accused No. 1 f.rm, played a rore by sending e-mails to respondent No.2 and the materiar placed by respondent No.2 is very m-rch suffucient tl a ! they were present. in the u,ork site and accused No.2, heing the proprietor of accused No. 1 firm, did not dispute the transaction and further held t hat whether the trretitioners were employees of accused No. 1 firm, whether they had any role in respect oI_ ;_he transaction lte-,ween accused No.1 hrm and other accus;ed Nos.I to 4, ."viii be revealed during the course of trial. L,ul not at the stilge of frarning of charges and disrrrissed ] 12 Crl.R.P.No.1 I of 2016 on Crl.R.P.No.2 4 of 2OL6 on 30' lI'2016'

04.O5.2016 and other petitioners, 1O. The sPecific petitioners with case of respond'ent No 2 is tLrat the a conspiracy supplicd thc defective amount of induced him to PaY an machinery and Rs.41,9B,OO O /- to accused No' 1 firm and the firm, scnt mails on being ernployees of accr-rsed No ' 1 and 06.12'201O and 22.L r.20to, 25 -L!'20to', 26't r'20to site on a nr-rrnber of theY were also Present at ttre work occasions, thereby they have conspired with other accr-sed and cheated him from the date of inccption' The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge ' after the material Procluced bY taking into consideration respondent No'2' carne to the conclusion that the petitioners were ex-employees of accused No 1 hrrn' 1 1 . Ttre core contentions of learned colrnsel for petitloners that the petitioners were employees and theY discharged their duties' No. 1 frrrn aliotted by accr'rsed No' 1 firm' and that they are not conspirators and abettors are concerned' whether tkrere is arry conspiracy between the petitioners and acctlsed Nos'1 to 4 or not, wkrether they are abettors or not' are disputed whrich were of accused ) I {----,-.?...!,51'.-.:.- - 13 facts artd th e same cannot be adjudicated in the present crrminal petition exercising the powers conferred lrnder Section 482 of the Cr.p.C. and the same have to be revr:aled alter a full fle:dged triai. 12. The othr:r contention raised by the learned counse.l for the petitioners that the nature of the allegations rnade agarnst tlee petitioners in the complaint is purely civil in nature and respondent No.2 has already frled a suir. in O.S.No.472 of 2016 against accused Nos.1 to 4. for reco\.ery of amount r.;f Rs.2,44,24,n7 I/_ and the same is hence, thc cr.lntinuation of crirninal proceedings agarnst ,he petitioners, is contrary to law, is concerned, basing upon pendency of civil case, the petitioners are not enti ed to seek quashing oI. the proceedings, as both the cases are different and distinctive. 1 3. Simiiarl_v, the other contention raised by learn<:d counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners trave n()t ed any sal: p166gsds from respondent No.2 and entire roceeds rve:re paid to accused No.1 firm. Whether the ners have r ecerved any arnolrnt liom accused No. I ertaining to the defective machinery which was solcl I'Io.2 or at the insitance of petitioners pending, recelV sale p petitio firm p to respondent 74 respondent No.2 sustained there is any consplracy accrlsed Nos.2 to 4, these dtrring the course of trial only' any monetarY loss or whether between the Petitioners and aspects trave to bc revealed

14.InVishnuI(rrrnarShuklasuprd,'theHon''blcSupreme Court held that since there was no susPicion, lct alonc strong or grave sr'rspicion' against the appellants' subjecting them to a full-fledged trial would be unjustihed' ol M.P., the Court Referring to Priyanka Mishra v' State emphasized that individuals must be protectcd from vexatiou.s and unwarranted prosecutions and frorn being dragged into unnecessary trials' The High Courts have a duty to qrrash such proceedings or discharge the accused in deserving cases' As tkre High Cor-rrt failed to do so' thc Supreme Court intervened' reaffirming its role as the "sentinel on the qr. i vive"' 15. In Vipin Sahni supra' the Hon'ble Supreme Cotlrt held that the Magistrate was fully justifred in exercrsrng power r.rnder Section 239 Cr.PC to discharge tLre appellants of offences r-rnder Sections 42O and 12OB IPC' as ttrere was material to infer conspiracy or d'eceit' Ttre CourI disclosed at the observed that the mortgage had becn I 't 15 olrtset ancl ,\ICTE never claimed dishonest inducenrent, thereby nega ting the essentia_l ingredients of cheating or conspiracy. The High Court,s contrary finding of suppressiotr was based on a technical apprc,ach unsupported by facts. Accordingiy, the Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court,s order dated 20.O1.2,f23 and restorecl the Magistrate,s discharge order. 76. In Debendra Nath padhi supra, the Hon,.ble Supreme Court held th at the expression ..record of the case,, in Section 227 Cr _p .C. ref-ers to the materiai and documelts forwarded b1, the Magistrate under Section 2O9, and the accused has no right to produce defence materia,l at the stage of lramin.g of charge, such right being available only at trial. Thc Court explained that Section 227 wirs lncorporated il1 the 1973 Code. to prevent undlre harassment of tl-re accused by enabling discharge where the evidence collec:cd falls short of the rnrnlrnum legzLl Unlike the old Code of 189g, which providerl for a lengthy ccmmittal inquiry under Sections 2O7 anct 2O7-A, the present Code, based on the Law Commission,sr abolished that procedure to avoid delay. of Session alone frames charges under reql-urernents. recommendation, Now, the Cor'lr.t 16 Section22aiftheaccuseclisnotdischargedunderSection 227, and, evidence is taken only after charges are framed'

17. In I(. Narayana Rao supra' the Hon'ble Supremc Court, relying on Sajjan Kumar v' CBI' reiterated the scope of Sections 227 and 228 Cr'P'C' It heid that at the stage of frarning ofcharge, the court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence only to see if a prirna facie case exists lf the material raises grave suspicion tkrat tkre accused may havc cornmitted an ofl.ence, charges must be framed; il it raises only mere sr-rspicion, discharge is warranted' Thc Magistrate is not a rnere post office but rnr'rst apply judicial mind to the broad probabilities, documents' and basic infirmities, without conclucting a roving enquiry into merits asinatrial.Theprovisionaimstopreventwastagcof public time and harassment to the accused where the evidentiary rnateria'l falls short of the legal threshold' 1a. In Yogesh supra, the Hon'ble Sr-rprerne Court explained the scope of discharge under Section 227 Cr'P'C' The Cottrt held that at the stage prior to frarning of charge' the Judge is bound to exarnine whether there is "suffrcient ground" to proceed against the accused, on the basis o[ the record and documents submitted'' This necessarily involves 17 application of .iudicial rnind, with a limited power to silt and weigl'r the material to see if a prirna facie case is made: out. The test virr jes with the facts of each case, but broaclly, if two views are possible and the evidence only raises mer.e suspicion, as opposed to grave suspicion, the accused rnust be discharge,l. At this stage. the Judge is r)ot conce-ned with the ultirnate result of the trial, but onl1, with whether the rnaterial s if unrebutted, make a conviction reason ably po s sible.

19. The abc,ve judgments which are reiied upon by learned courtsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that ttrere are specific ailegations levelled against the petitioners that they acted as consprrators and abettors of accrlsred Nos.2 to 4 and they supplied defective machinerl. by receiving huge irrnorrnts from respondent No.2. 20. It is pertinent to mention that the learned Magistra te after due verifi,:ation of the record passed thr: impugnt:d order dated 20.)7.2O75 in Crl.M.p.No.543 of 2015 holdirtg that the petitioners were accused and abettors of th e offences alleged accused Nos. 1 to 4 and. rightty dismisseC the discharge a1>piication b.y giving cogglt reasons, which l 18 especiallY without was corrflrmed by the learned Sessions Judge' Hence' the petitioners that the contention of learned counsel for the 1ea rned Magistratc took cognizance' assigning reasons in the absence of any prirna facie case against the petitioners, is also not tenable under law' 21. The record. fr-rrther reveals that respondent No'2 filed suit in O.S.No.472 of 2OL6 for recovery of an arnount of Rs.2,44,24,a77/-, which is s subsequent to the frling of the private complaint in C'C'No'392 of 2Ol5' Ttre nature of the relief sought in the suit and the allegations made in the complaint are different and distinctive' It is trite law that rnere pendency of civil proceedings doeS not preclr.de the party to initiate criminal proceedings under the penal provlslOns. 22. It is relevant to rnention that in I{' Jagadish v' Udaya I(urnar G.S.6, the Hon'lcle Apex Court has reaffirmed the weli-settled principle that the sarne set of facts rnay give rise to both civil and crirninal proceedings ' and that availing a civil rernedy does not bar the initiation of criminal prosecution' The Court reiied heavily precedents lrke Kamaladeui Aganual u' State of W'B artd 6 (2020) 14 scc s52 ./, 19 u Tisuns Chemical Ind.ustry Rajesh Agaru.tal, to reil.erate that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed rrrerely because a ci',,i1 dispute is also pending between the parties. In l{arnqlctdeui Agaruual, it was categorically held that the pendency of civil proceedings does not justify quasihing crirninal prc,ceedings, especially where the aliegat_ions disciose a prima facie crirnina-l olfence The Clourt observed that rnany acts of cheating occur in th e context of cornrnercial or financial transactions, and such a .,civil profile" croes no t strip the act of i ts ..crirninar outf,it.,, The Court also relerre d. to State of Hargana u. tsttajan Lctl and Rajesh Bajaj u. State (NCT of Delhi), which treld r_hat quashing of .aIRs under Section 482 Cr.p.C. shouid be limited to rarr: and exceptional cases. It ernptras ized that just because a transaction involves a comrnercial or rnonetary elenrent that alone is not a grouncl to rule tut criminal interrt or p-roceedings. Ultimately, the Court concluded tha.- the High Court had erred in quashing __he crirninal proceedings, stressing that crirnina,l cases rnr_rst proceed as per the Cr.p.C. and cannot be halted soiely due to parallel ci,, il litigation, regardless ol_ the status or authority of the civil forum. 20

23. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid d.own by the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated supra' this Court does not find any illegality. irregularity or procedural irnpropriety warranting interference with the orders dated 30.11.2O16 in Cr1.R.P'No-24 of 2OL6 and O4'O5'2O15 in Crl.R.P.No. 1 1 of 20 15 passed by the learned Sessions Jtrdge, confirrning the order dated 20 'Ol '2015 in Crl.M.P.No.543 of 2015 passed by the lezrrned Magistrate or any ground to quash C.C.No.392 of 2015 to exercise the powers conferred trncler Sections 482 of the Cr'P'C' and the sarne is liable to be disrnissed.

24. Accordingly, the crirninal petition is disrnissed' However, the presence of the petitioners/accused Nos'S' 11, 13 and 2l before tkre trial Court in C'C' No'392 of 2015 is dispensed with, tlnless their - presence is specifically reqr-rired d.uring the course of trial subject to the condition that the petitioners shall represent the rnatter through their Counsel on eactr and every date of hearing' In case of non- appearance of the petitioners on specifrc date so fixed by the trial Court, the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the rnatter in accordance wittl iaw'

25. It is rnade clear that the trial Court is directed to I I t 21 decide C.C.No.392 of 2015 on rrrerits, in accordanct: with law, r-rninfluLenced by any of the observations made in this order as welr as in the impugned orders dated 3o. i.7.2C 16 and 04.OS.2016. Miscelianeous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/- A,V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ SECTION OT:FICER //TRUE COPY// To, Medak at Sangar6ddy. l The Judqe. Famiiv court-cum-vil Additionar District and Sessions Judge 2. The Station House Officer, BDL Bhanoor police Station, Medak. 3' Two ccs to the Fubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at 4. One CC to Sri N.l{aveen Kumar, Advocate [OpUC] 5. One CC to Sri B.l(iran Kumar, Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT' NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:23109t2025 .a \ 'i 0 [tI 20ffi .i ,'.--..,..,: ..-.:., \a=---.__:--' COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.10936 and 10932 ot 2011 DISMISSING THE BOTH CRIMINAL PETITIONS 1 Io I0 ls4-