Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1012 (TS)

G. Venu Gopal v. State of Telangana

2025-09-11

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.43 of 2025 on the file of P.S. EOW Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 318 (4), 319(2), 316(2), 316(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS 2023”) and Sections 66, 66-C, 66-D of ITA 2000-2008, 5 of TSPDFEA Act. 2. Heard the submissions of Sri Thakur Kiran Singh, learned counsel representing Ms. Thakur Poornima, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State and Ms. L. Durga Devi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that a bare reading of the complaint itself reveals that he is the proprietor of AV Solutions and that he owns a website and the complaint is a generalized one without any specific allegations against the petitioner and that it is a manufactured complaint, they have taken all the data pertaining to the petitioner and not allowing the legal operations and the petitioner is not able to advise his clients and that the petitioner is languishing in jail just based on the false allegations. He further submitted that there is no prima-facie case against the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein is accused No.2 and is no way connected with the allegations leveled and that there is no prima-facie case against the petitioner. All the allegations pertain to IIT Transactions, but his company is AV Solutions, which is not concerned with the operations of IIT transaction. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the allegations are very serious in nature involving a fraud of around Rs.442 crores and that the accused No.2 is alleged to have deceived 3,373 customers and that he has repaid 337.16 crores and is yet to pay 105.04 crores to the innocent victims. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. He also relied upon the citation in Anil Bhavarlal Jain and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others , 2024 SCC Online 3823 , wherein it was held that any crime registered under the economic offences cannot be quashed. 5. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. He also relied upon the citation in Anil Bhavarlal Jain and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others , 2024 SCC Online 3823 , wherein it was held that any crime registered under the economic offences cannot be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-defacto complainant has also argued submitting that there is a merger between two companies i.e., IIT transactions and AVS Solutions and that they have also conducted a Meet and Greet program and that she has also filed the photographs pertaining to the said meeting and the transactions which are common to both the companies. She therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Perused the record. 7. The petitioner counsel has relied upon A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and Another , 2014 SCC Online MAD 2869 ; wherein the High Court of Madras has rejected the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR in connection with the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said transaction of money was in between the defacto complainant and the accused Nos.1 and 2 to a tune of Rs.1 crore and 60 lakhs. To secure the same, the accused No.1 has executed a mortgage deed in favour of the complainant relating to 100 plots at Sumangali Village. Apart from these transactions, the complainant joined in the Gold Chit Business conducted by the accused No.1 and paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and it is alleged that the accused persons swindled all the amounts and cheated the complainant intentionally by an act of fraud, cheating and criminal breach of trust. In the said case, it was held that dishonesty inducement is the sine qua non to attract the provisions under Section 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The said ingredient is lacking in the said case and therefore, the proceedings were quashed. The facts of the present case differ from the cited decision, hence, the same cannot be made applicable. 8. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another , 2000 ACR SC 1953 ; the Apex Court has held that in determining the question, it is to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. 8. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another , 2000 ACR SC 1953 ; the Apex Court has held that in determining the question, it is to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. By observing so, the appeals were allowed quashing the proceedings against the appellants herein. 9. In Rikhab Birani and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , 2025 SCC Online SC 823 ; it was held that it is the duty and obligation of the Court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing process, particularly when the matter is essentially of civil nature. The prevalent impression that civil remedies, being time-consuming, do not adequately protect the interests of creditors or lenders should be discouraged and rejected as criminal procedure cannot be used to apply pressure. Failure to do so results in the breakdown of the rule of law and amounts to misuse and abuse of legal process. 10. He has also relied upon in Smt. Rashmi Kumar Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada , 1996 JT SC 11 175 ; where the ingredients of Section 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to criminal breach of trust were discussed. Though the counsel has relied upon the said judgment, in the said case, the High Court has quashed the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, while the Apex Court has allowed the appeal and the Judgment of the High Court was set aside and has directed the trial Court to proceed from the stage where the complaint was pending at the time of quashing. Thus, the said decision does not aid the petitioner counsel in any way. 11. In Mariam Fasihuddin and Another Vs. Thus, the said decision does not aid the petitioner counsel in any way. 11. In Mariam Fasihuddin and Another Vs. State by Adugodi Police Station and Another , Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2024 ; wherein the ingredients of forgery and use of forged documents were discussed that it was the family dispute following the solemnization of marriage between the concerned parties, the wife purportedly endured both physical and mental torture and further was not supported by respondent No.2 and his family members even after the birth of the minor child. The original passport of the minor child was presumed to have been issued with the consent and support of respondent No.2 and he allegedly even sponsored the travel of his wife and minor son through his brother-in-law for Visa purposes, who in his sponsorship letter explicitly cited the passport number of the minor child. Respondent No.2 chose to lodge the concerned FIR as a counterblast to the complaint filed by the appellant-wife inspite of being fully aware of the issuance of the minor child’s passport. Thus, the appellants were unnecessarily implicated and dragged into criminal proceedings, thereby causing undue hardship to them. It was observed that there were numerous complaints and legal proceedings pending between the appellants and respondent No.2, which had adversely impacted the rights and interests of the minor child. The conduct exhibited by respondent No.2 i.e., the husband infringes upon the best interests of the minor child, which necessitates the child’s travel abroad, for the realization of opportunities and intrinsic value, aligning with the child’s dignity, as enshrined in the Constitution. With the said observations, the Apex Court has quashed the proceedings under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged by the respondent No.2/husband against the appellant-wife and all the proceedings were quashed. The facts and circumstances of the said decision differ with the present case, hence, the same is not applicable. 12. In Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another , (2017) 9 SCC 641 ; it is held that in a case involved in extortion, forgery and conspiracy where all the appellants were acting as a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the FIR on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant. State of Gujarat and Another , (2017) 9 SCC 641 ; it is held that in a case involved in extortion, forgery and conspiracy where all the appellants were acting as a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the FIR on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant. The P.C Act has been invoked involving 6.13 crores. Thereby the High Court has dismissed the quash petition and the Apex Court has confirmed the same. 13. In Somjeet Mallick Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others , (2024) SCC Online SC 2820 ; it was held that it is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigation are before the Court, the Court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the Court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR. 14. In State Vs. M. Maridoss and Another , 2023 SCC Online SC 47 ; it was held that from the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the reasoning given by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings as if the High Court was conducting the mini trial. The scope and ambit of powers to be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been elaborately dealt with and considered by this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure case , 2021 (19) SCC 411 , by observing so, it is the right conferred upon the investigating agency to conduct the investigation and reasonable time should be given to the investigating agency to conduct the investigation unless it is found that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence at all or the complaint is barred by any law. 15. In Dinesh Sharma Vs. 15. In Dinesh Sharma Vs. Emgee Cables and Communication Limited and Another , 2025 SCC Online SC 929 , decided on 23.04.2025 the Apex Court has considered the decision laid down in Parbatbhai Aahir (supra) wherein it is observed that the Economic offences by their very nature lie beyond the domain of mere dispute between the private parties and the High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. Thus, it can be concluded that economic offences by their very nature stand on different footing than other offences and have wider ramifications. They constitute a class apart. Economic offences affect the economy of the country as a whole and pose a serious threat to the financial health of the country. If such offences are viewed lightly, the confidence and trust of the public will be shaken. The Apex Court has held that High Court was not justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 in the said case and has set aside the said order. 16. In Anil Bhavarlal Jain (supra) a special statute i.e., P.C Act has been invoked and a substantial injury was caused to the public exchequer. Therefore, the Lordships’ have held that quashing of offences under the said Act would have a grave and substantial impact not just on the parties involved, but also on the society at large. As such the High Court committed no error in declining to exercise its inherent powers in the present case, thereby refusing to quash the criminal proceedings. Thus, the Apex Court has upheld the orders of the High Court in dismissing the quash petition. 17. In the present case the record points out the allegations of financial fraud against the petitioner involving 442.20 crores by running a Ponzi Scheme. It further points out that thousands of innocent customers are lured under the scheme. Investigation is still in progress. 18. In light of the above held decisions and in view of the above held discussion, it is held that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered as the petition lacks merits.