Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1454 (TS)

B. Sunitha v. State of Telangana

2025-11-12

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : J. Sreenivas Rao, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1789 of 2022 on the file of the XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and 156(3) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused No.1, a close friend of the complainant for the past ten years, approached the complainant in January 2020 seeking financial assistance for investment in a project of SS Constructions, owned by accused No.2. The project related to laying roads on the National Highway at Kurnool, allegedly awarded to SS Constructions by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Believing their representations, the complainant advanced Rs.15,00,000/- in February 2020, which was transferred to accused No.2’s account, on the assurance of repayment within 45 days. In March 2020, the accused again sought Rs.10,00,000/-, and the complainant paid Rs.7,00,000/- through bank transfers and Rs.3,00,000/- in cash. They again promised to return Rs.25,00,000/- within 45 days but failed to do so. In October 2020, the accused again sought Rs.20,00,000/-, assuring that a total of Rs.45,00,000/- would be repaid within 45 days. After receiving the money, they neither repaid the amount nor responded to calls, and later blocked the complainant’s number. Their conduct shows clear dishonest intention to cheat. When confronted, both accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Fearing for his life and property, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 3. Heard Mr.K.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr.Ravi, learned counsel representing M/s.Joshi and Chillara Legal Associates LLP, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case merely because she is a friend of accused No.2. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case merely because she is a friend of accused No.2. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that respondent No.2 herself has stated in the complaint that, believing the representations made by accused No.2 and after going through the contract document awarded in favour of S.S. Constructions, represented by its proprietor, R. Suman Murali Reddy, accused No.2, she had paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to accused No.2. Thereafter, she gave further amount to accused No.2 on various dates, and the total amount came to Rs.45,00,000/- However, accused No.2 failed to repay the said amount despite repeated demands made by respondent No.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has neither paid nor transferred any amount to the petitioner. The entire amount was paid only to accused No.2. Merely because accused No.2 failed to refund the said amount, the petitioner has been falsely implicated as accused No.1. There is no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner. The entire allegations of dishonest intention and failure to repay the amount within the stipulated time are only against accused No.2. Hence, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioner. The nature of the allegations made in the complaint pertains only to recovery of money due and payable by accused No.2, and the said allegations are purely civil in nature. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indra Jeet Singh and another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another , [Crl.A.Nos.1889-1890 of 2024, dt.18.09.2025] and Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another , [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 893] 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that the petitioner herself had introduced accused No.2 to respondent No.2. At the instance of the petitioner, respondent No.2 have a huge amount to accused No.2. There was dishonest intention on the part of both the petitioner and accused No.2, and specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner to attract the alleged offences. At the instance of the petitioner, respondent No.2 have a huge amount to accused No.2. There was dishonest intention on the part of both the petitioner and accused No.2, and specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner to attract the alleged offences. Whether the petitioner has actually committed the offences or not has to be revealed only after a full- fledged trial before the trial Court. On the basis of the grounds urged in the criminal petition, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings, particularly when she has not denied her relationship with accused No.2. 6. 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 filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. on 28.02.2022. The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, after conducting investigation, filed a final report, and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences and issued summons to the petitioner and accused No.2 in C.C. No.1789 of 2022. 7. Upon perusal of the complaint and charge sheet, it reveals that respondent No.2 initially gave an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to accused No.2. Thereafter, respondent No.2 transferred Rs,4,00,000/- on 13.03.2020, Rs.3,00,000/- on 30.03.2020, Rs.3,00,000/- on 23.03.2020, and Rs.20,00,000/- in October 2020 into the account of S.S. Constructions. Even according to the complaint, the total amount given to accused No.2, who is the proprietor of S.S. Constructions, comes to Rs.45,00,000/-. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that she introduced accused No.2 to respondent No.2, and believing the representations of accused No.2, respondent No.2 gave the said amount to him. The major allegations are levelled against accused No.2, who failed to refund the amount, despite repeated demands. 8. Taking into consideration the above said allegations, this Court is of the considered view that any dishonest intention, if any, is attributable only to accused No.2, and there are no specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of the alleged offences. 9. In Indra Jeet Singh’s case (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the dispute pertaining to payments of money initiation of criminal proceedings would be unfortunate as also abuse of process of law. 9. In Indra Jeet Singh’s case (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the dispute pertaining to payments of money initiation of criminal proceedings would be unfortunate as also abuse of process of law. That apart, no dishonest intention could be shown to satisfy the requirement of Section 420 of the IPC. 10. In Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy’s case (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law where uncontroverted allegations fail to disclose the commission of any offence. It further observed that the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC were not satisfied, as the appellant's institution, being housed in a building below 15 metres, was not required to obtain a Fire Department NOC for recognition. Consequently, the alleged false representation could not have induced the Education Department to act in a manner it would not have otherwise done. It emphasised that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained in the absence of dishonest intention or wrongful gain/loss and accordingly quashed the proceedings to prevent miscarriage of justice and unnecessary harassment of the appellant. 11. In the case on hand, the specific allegations are levelled against accused No.2, that he is not refunding the amount received from respondent No.2. The above said allegations do not constitute any offence against the petitioner, including offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.1789 of 2022 on the file of the XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, is a clear abuse of process of law. Therefore, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court is of the considered view that the said proceedings are liable to be quashed, and accordingly quashed. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.