ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.236 of 2023 of Central Crime Station (CCS), D.D., Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case: 2.1. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 09.08.2023 stating that on 12.10.2022, accused Nos.1 to 4 approached him and his brother namely R.Vijay Kumar, Non-Resident Indian (for short ‘NRI’) and victim with an investment proposal in real estate by offering alluring returns on Rs.10 Crores deposit, as they aimed to establish a real estate company targeting land acquisition near Hyderabad, and on the following day, the de-facto complainant was taken to the site and under pressure and misleading promises, the complainant’s brother invested an initial amount of Rs.5 Crores, which was received through both bank transactions and cash during the period from October 2022 to December 2022. Despite a commitment agreement executed by accused No.1, Managing Director of the unregistered company, attempts to the promoters/other accused through phone proved unsuccessful, as such cheated to the tune of Rs.6.1 Crores. 3. When this matter is taken up for consideration on 10.09.2025, Mr.V.V.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that during the pendency of this criminal petition, respondent No.2/de-facto complainant died and he seeks short adjournment for getting instructions and therefore, the matter was posted to 23.09.2025. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 24.09.2025 and at the request of learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, the matter was posted to 13.10.2025. On 13.10.2025 and 28.10.2025, there was no representation on behalf of Mr.V.V.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The record discloses that the legal heir of respondent No.2/de-facto complainant did not file any application seeking impleadment. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits. 4. Heard Mr.Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner No.1, Mr.M.P.Chandramouli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner Nos.2 and 3, representing Mr.Raghu Gurram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 5. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits. 4. Heard Mr.Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner No.1, Mr.M.P.Chandramouli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner Nos.2 and 3, representing Mr.Raghu Gurram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 5. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners: 5.1 Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, respondent No.2 invested the amount in purchasing the land. The said allegation does not come within the ambit of deposit as envisaged under Section 2(b) of the Act. Hence, the offence under Section 5 of the Act is not attracted. 5.2 They further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners that there is a dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners from the date of entering into the contract. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are not attracted against the petitioners. 5.3 They also submitted that petitioner No.1 and Neevedhik Estates LLP had entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 22.08.2021. As per the MOU, respondent No.2 has agreed to refund the amount of Rs.4,50,00,000/-. In the event if the petitioner No.1/ accused No.1 failed to refund the said amount within the stipulated time, petitioner No.1 has to execute the Sale Deed in favour of Neevedhik Estates LLP. Pursuant to clause No.3 of MOU, dated 22.08.2023, Dharani Sri Chandra Manne executed an Agreement of Sale coupled with possession in favour of R.Vijay Kumar, who is none other the victim and brother of respondent No.2 on 21.08.2023. Thereafter, pursuant to the Agreement of Sale, Registered Sale Deed was also executed on 16.09.2023 vide document bearing No.6570 of 2023 in favour of R.Vijay Kumar/victim. By virtue of the same, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.236 of 2023 is the clear abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 6. Submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State: 6.1 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on 09.08.2023. Basing on the same, the present crime was registered against the petitioners. 6. Submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State: 6.1 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on 09.08.2023. Basing on the same, the present crime was registered against the petitioners. Execution of the MOU, Agreement of Sale with possession, and Registered Sale Deed in favour of the victim is subsequent to the registration of the crime. Basing on the subsequent developments, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of proceedings in the present crime. Analysis: 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 09.08.2023, wherein it is stated that his brother namely R.Vijay Kumar, who is NRI running I.T. Company at New Jersey and he invested an amount of Rs.5 Crores with the petitioners in respect of purchase of the land. However, the petitioners have not refunded the amount and cheated him. 8. The record further reveals that subsequent to registration of the crime, petitioner No.1 and Neevedhik Estates LLP, for which respondent No.2 is the Proprietor, have entered into MOU on 22.08.2021. As per the said MOU, petitioner No.1 has agreed to refund the amount of Rs.4,50,00,000/-. In the event if the petitioner No.1 failed to refund the amount within the prescribed time, he agreed to execute the Sale Deed in respect of the property i.e. Flat No.202, (Bearing Separate Municipal No.8-2-693/12-14/202) (vide its PTIN No.1100871432) Duplex Flat popularly called as D2 in the Complex known as Fortuna Residency admeasuring 3207 square feet together with undivided share of land measuring 108.97 square yards (out of 923 square yards) in the premises bearing Plot Nos.12, 13 and 14 admeasuring 923 square yards in Sy.No.129/50 old, new 331 situated at Shaikpet Village, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, belonging to his relative namely Dharani Sri Chandra Manne, in favour of R.Vijay Kumar, who is none other than the brother of respondent No.2/victim. Pursuant to the said MOU, Dharani Sri Chandra Manne executed Agreement of Sale coupled with possession in favour of brother of respondent No.2 namely R.Vijay Kumar on 21.08.2023. Pursuant to the said MOU, Dharani Sri Chandra Manne executed Agreement of Sale coupled with possession in favour of brother of respondent No.2 namely R.Vijay Kumar on 21.08.2023. During the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsels placed copy of the Sale Deed vide document bearing No.6570 of 2023, dated 16.09.2023, which reveals that Dharani Sri Chandra Manne executed Sale Deed in favour of Ramisetti Vijay Kumar pursuant to the MOU, dated 22.08.2023, as well as Agreement of Sale, dated 21.08.2023. 9. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, respondent No.2 has not deposited the amount with the petitioners and they invested amount in purchasing of land and the same is not comes within the ambit of deposit, as envisaged under Section 2(b) of the Act. Hence, this Court is of the prima facie view that the offence under Section 5 of the Act is not attracted against the petitioners. Similarly, the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are also not attracted against the petitioners on the ground that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have entered into MOU on 22.08.2023, subsequently executed Agreement of Sale. By virtue of execution of the Registered Sale Deed, dated 16.09.2023, pursuant to the MOU in favour of brother of respondent No.2 namely Ramisetti Vijay Kumar, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal case would amounts to abuse of process of law. 10. It is pertinent to mention that the law governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled by the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court illustratively catalogued categories of cases warranting quashment, such as when the allegations taken at face value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to secure the ends of justice. 11. For the foregoing reasons and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 12. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. 11. For the foregoing reasons and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 12. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.236 of 2023 of Central Crime Station (CCS), D.D., Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed.