The High Court · 2025

Firm. R/o M/s RPVS rnt)'JJJ"iu-t"i i " .q9tqo^s1t76' i'r""? r,,iiio"niie , Khairatabad, Hvderabad 500004' 5- S.Vasanth, s/o V Selvaraj,Occ Administrator Office addri-'ss' lnfinite Linked Solutions Private Limitei'iF;;;;iv S;rnliap Telecommunications Private iil;te"ji 3;,i ik;or., c.ntLi'pr,i', Somaiiguda' Hvderabad-500082 6. K. Ravi Kiran. S/o K J Bhaskar Rao, Occ Sr' Commission Administrator office address. rntnite rin'iei'dolitioni Friurt" Limited (Formerly samlaap Tetecommunication" prtvaiJii*]i.ili :io rloor, central Plaza, somaj iguda, Hyderabad-500082

7. T. Dharmender, S/o T Pochaiah'Occ Sr' Administrator Office address lnfinite Linked solutions private"iffiili' Iro'rnttrv S"laap Telecommunications Private Limitedt sru rrooi'beii'ji Fi'ii''s"*ajigu'da' Hvderabad-500082

8. Sudhanshu Kumar S address. lnfinite Link inoh. S/o Dilip Singh,Occ. Commission ^Specialist "i'Sbrrtion.'p,ivaie Limited ( Formerly Samlaap Office **7 Telecommunications private Limited) 3rd Froor, centrar praza, somajiguda, Hyderabad--500082 9 A . sushanth Kumar, S/o-A Narsing Rao, occ- commissron speciarist office -sr#i;;; -"'"" Friza somljiguaa, address. rnfinite Linke^d sorutions "privaie L-it.J rrormeiiy Telecommunrcations private Limrted) 5ia Fioor, Hyderabad-500082 -cbntrat

10. T.L-V.S.Ayyfppa Swamy, S/o T Trimurthulu, Occ. lnventory Analyst Office address. rnfinite Linke_d sorutions privite LrririiJ lrormeity' sirii;;'p" Tetecommunications private Limited) gid Fi"",, bb"trar pil=l silIrigrar, Hyderabad-500082

11. S.Sunil Kumar, S/o S Uma Maheshwar Rao, Occ. lnvenlory Analyst Cffice address. rnfinrre Linked Solations private LiriritJ rF"i*.iri slr]r;; "= Tetecommunications private Limited) irO Fi"or, b;"traf pt6za SomljlguOa, Hyderabad-500082 12 P vtjay Krishna. s/o padmaNabhan, occupation. Associate commission Ana ryst office addresi t nrinit" _Lini"J soJ5tiln1' pnrate Lim ited (Former ry Sa m laap Telecomm unicalions private L,rit"o ilio rroor- curtll p:rrrr',', Somajiguda. Hyderabad_500082 13 R..Anil Babu, s/o R Arthur Babu,occ. commission speciarist office address. lnfinite Linked Sotutions private LimrteJ iF;;;;ii Sjmraip-' Tetecommunications private t_imiteot 3rd Ftooi ieniiul Fr5ra, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082

14. K. Satistr Kumar,S/o K Srinivas, O.-cc. Administrator Office address. lnfinite Linked sorutions private Limited iFormeirv srirr""rp Terecommunications P rivate L im ited ) 3 rd F toor, Centra't p rar;,''$;;;i6,d., Hra; i; i,;_56bii8 2 '15 A V S.Narayana. S/o A Kistaiah, Occ. lnventory Analyst Office address lnfinite Linked Sotutions private Limite; if"rr6riy'Srrir;; -- -*"'""" Telecommunications private fimrt.O j Srd f l;oi'i.ntrrr ptaza, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082 16'Aiit Kumar Pandev. s/o ] N pandey, occ. rnventory Anaryst office address. I nfinite Lin ked Sotiriions prtvate rimlLI iF"i.Eriv"srrnrm p Telecommunications private f imiteOj Srd rfooi'ienir"r Fi5ra, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082 '17.A Philip.s, S/o A Anthony, Occupation. lnventory Anatyst Office address. l nf in ite Li n ked So t utions' privare L - iGa fF-" I',ir JrrV'$hr r" p Telecommunications private f imrteoi Srd nooi'i"ni;rf Ff 5.a, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082 '18.1, Bharath Kumar, S/o M Ashok Kumar, Occ. Commission Specialist Office address. Infinite Linked Solutions priviie f rmitei'iiormerty Samtaap Tetecommunications private Limiteol Jid FiooiltEntr"r eraza sol;!; iguoa. Hyderabad-500082 - '19. SRudra Kumar S/o Malleswala Rao, Occ. Associate Commission Analvst office address. Infinite Linked sotrt.n" FnuaiJ L,;iHii;;;I, g;t#; retecommunications private rimiieiii aici irti,r, bi,"ta prri", s6,ii'iii',liii Hyderabad-500082

20. B. Venkateshwara Rao S/o B Rao,Occ. Commission Analyst Office address. I nf i n ite Lin k ed S orutiond prirrle'rimtJj f F6l,ii r", p "l.iv'5r, Telecommunications Private Limited) 3rd Floor, Central PIaza, Soma'jiguda, Hyderabad-500082

21. K. Naresh kumar, S/o K Sadanand,Occ. Commission Analyst Office address lnfinite Linked Solutions Private Limited (Formerly Samlaap Telecommunications Private Limited) 3rd Floor, Central Plaza, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082

22. R lsrael, S/o lsrael,Occ. Employee, Office address. lnfinite Linked Solutions Private Limited (Formerly Samlaap Telecommunications Private Limited) 3rd Floor, Central Plaza, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082 ... Respondents/Acc used Nos. 2 to 22 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the order dated 26.09.2018 passed in Crl.R.P.No-330 of 2014 by the lVletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad confirming the order dated 25.O7 .2014 passed in Crl.lV.P.No.2'l '19 of 20'13 by the Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad (in Crime No.-l 36 of 2012 of PS Karkhana) and quash the same directing the trial Court to take cognizance of the complaint. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad to take cognizance of the complaint in Crl.lVl-P.No.2119 of 20'13 in Crime No.136 of 2012 of PS Karkhana, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 9'1 r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue summons to the Station House Officer' Karkhana Police Station to produce the enclosures appended to the original complaint in FlR.No.136 of 2012 before this Honourable Court. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l\rlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sornasekhar Vaddi, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and Sri M Pratap Singh, Advocate for the Respondent No.2,3,4,5,9,10, 13 14 & 17. The Court delivered the following: Judgment -i- ra(.. .-..rry HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.L22L6 OF 2018 JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Petition is fiIed questioning the orders of the learned Metropolital Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Petition No.33O of 2Ol4 dated 26.O9.2018.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the defacto complarnant. He is the Director of M/s.panam Tele Solutions Private Limited. The company provides services to Indian and foreign clients for their operations in India and abroad. There was a tie up with M/s.PANAM TELECOMMUNICATIONS LLC, Texas, USA for providing backend support.

3. The respondents 2 to 32 were shown as accused and the petitioner hled complaint stating that all of them have entered into a criminal conspiracy and swindled the amount from the compaly of the petitioner by fabricating and forging invoices and thereby resulting in wrongful loss of Rs.2,22,22,L95/-. On the basis of the complaint hled, Crime No.136 of 2OL2 was registered. W.P.No.30367 of 2OI2 was hled by the petitioner seeking 2 expeditious investigation. The police hled hnal report stating that the dispute was civil in nature. 4 A protest petition was filed in Crl.M.P.No.2119 of 2013 before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. Learned Magistrate dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that Smt.T.Sulochana Rao, who is the real mother of the defacto complainant/petitioner herein and 2"a respondent/A 1 Mrs. Lavanya Lewis, stated that the petitioner did not invest any amount in the company.

5. The learned Magistrate found that the transacLions were purely civil in nature and no offences of criminal misappropriation, cheating or theft were made out, and the Magistrate accepted the f,rnal report of the police. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.33O of 2014. Learned Sessions Judge, having heard the parties, held that on the basis of the statement made by T.Sulochana Rao, who is the mother of the defacto complainant, it is apparent that the transactions a-re purely civil in nature and orders passed by the learned Magistrate requires no interference. 3

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that both the Courts below did not apply their mind to the facts of the case. The Court had to look into the complaint and once the allegations made in the complaint make out an offence, charges had to be framed without considering any other aspects in the case. The other circumstances can only be considered during trial. He further submitted that the case of the petitioner was pr{udiced and both the Courts below showed bias. The petitioner relied on nearly 50 judgments, which were extracted in the impugned order of ttre learned Sessions Judge. On the basis of the very same judgments, learned counsel submits that the statement of the mother of the petitioner ought not to have been considered by the Court below ald the learned Magistrate has committed an error in recording the statements of the mother of the petitioner and dismissing the protest petition hled by the petitioner. 7 The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not extracted since all the judgments form part of the impugned order. 4

8. Petitioner and A1 are the children of Smt.T.Sulochana Rao. Companies were floated by A1 and the petitioner herein, who are the brother and sister, respectively. The remaining accused are all employees working under A1 and the defacto Gomplainant. The crux of the a-llegation in the present complaint is that though several invoices were submitted to ,{1 company, for a total amount of Rs.2,00,69,585/- for the services rendered, only Rs.28,65,938 l- was paid and there was a balance amolrnt of Rs.2,22,22,1,95/-.

9. The transactions in between them as narrated in complaint were during the normal course of business.

10. The business in between the companies was done with the consent of one another and it cannot be said that there was any false representation or inducement by A1 from the averments in complaint. No such allegation is also made in the complaint. Only for the reason of there being an outstanding, it cannot be said that not paying the outstanding amount would attract offences of either cheating or crimina-l misappropriation.

11. Further, allegation of committing theft of furniture, iaptops, desk tops is made against the employees. There is no proof that the rv r{ai:'. t.. i!t$3:rrt '**?'-\-:+7, 5 employees had committed theft of the said furniture or'laptops as evident from the investigation done by the police and a_lso the statement of the mother of the petitioner.

12. The argument of the learned counsel that examination of the mother of petitioner/defacto complainant is improper and the Magistrate Court or the police during investigation should not have examined her, unless complainant cites her as a witness, is wholly rncorrect.

13. Under Sectron 2OO of Cr.P.C, a Magistrate tal<ing cognizance of a complaint shall examine complainant and the witnesses present, if any. The examination by the Magistrate cannot be conhned to the witnesses produced by the complainant only. Any witness whose evidence is necessaqr to decide whether cognizance can be taken, can be examined by the Magistrate during the course of enquiry under Section 2OO of Cr.P.C. Similar is the case during investigation. The police need. not confine the investigation only to examine the witnesses cited by the complainalt. Whatever is required to probe into a criminal complaint has to be done by the investigating officer. There cannot be any selective examination of 6 witnesses as argued by the counsel, either during investigation or during the procedure of taking cognizance under Section 2OO of Cr.P.C. For the sake of convenience, Section 2OO of Cr.P.C ts extracted hereunder *2OO. Exdmination of complainant. A Maqistrate takinq coqnizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and th.e u-titnesses present, if onu, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to witing and shalL be signed bg ttrc ampLainant and the uitnesses, and also bg the Magistrate: Prouided that u.then thE complaint is made in uiting, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the uitnesses - lg)if a public seruant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his officiol duties or a Court has made the amtrtlaint; or [Uif the Magistrate makes ouer the co.se for inquiry or tiol to another Magi.strgte under sedion 192: Prouided fufther that if th,e Maqi.strote makes ouer the case to another Maqistrate under sedion 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Maqistrate need not re-exomine them.'

14. The complaint is result of disputes in between two companies, which transactions are purely civil in nature. The petitioner apparently hled criminal complaint against the respondent/accu.sed only to coerce them to settle disputes in the company which falls within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court.

15. There are no grounds to interfere with the result of investigation and the subsequent refusal by the Magistrate to take 7 cognizance. Further, the learned Sessions Court,s refusa-l to entertain the Revision Petition also cannot be disturbed. I I I I

16. Accordingly, Criminal petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaleous appiications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTI FFICER I I I To, I 1 The lvletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad 2. The Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan I\/agistrate, Secunderabad 3. The station House Officer, Karkhana police Station, Hyderabad 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 5. One CC to Sri Somasekhar Vaddi, Advocate tOpUCl 6. One CC to Sri M Pratap Singh, Advocate [OpUC] Hyderabad (OUT) ADK/gh

7. Two CD Copiesw HIGH COURT DATED:0510212025 I JUDGMENT CRLP.No.12216 of 2018 ( 22 SEP zffi ,c- + D i-sr-,j\] {l H tj.o DISMISSING THE GRLP p(