CRLP/14815/2024 of Sri. Yeragudi Rajeev Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 6 November 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by petitioner- accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C No.2356 of 2023 pending on the file of the lealned XIV Additional Chief ti4etropolitan [\4agistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the lndian Penal Code, '1860.

2. Heard Mr. K.S.Suneel, learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent No.2-de facto complainant has expired and there is no representation on his behalf Hence, Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1- State, is heard on behalf of respondent No.2-de fa8lo complainant also Perused the material on record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner- accused No.1 is the Chairman and Managing Direitor of M/s. Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Limited. lt is alleged that on the instructions of petitioner-accused No.'1., accused Nos.2 and 3, on 03.02.2016, induced the de facto complainant to part with a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- towards the purchase of a product in which he was not interested, and further obtained his signature on an agreement without allowing him to read the terms and conditions therein. subsequenfly, upon returning home, the de faclo complainant roticed several discrepancies in the documents. On 05.02.2016, when he, along with his wife, approached the accused to seek clarification of the terms and requested for canceilation of their membership, the acclsed informed them that the amount paid was non_refundable.

4. Learned counser for the petitioner submits that the compraint does not disclose the name of petitioner_accused No..1 rr:r any specific overt act was attributed to him. Despite his name not berng mentioned in the complaint, he was arrayed as accused No..l in th3 charge sheet. The petitioner-accused No.1 had no knowredge of rhe transaction between the Company and the de facto complainant lhe petitioner and the de facto comprainant have amicabry setfled l:heir disputes between them and entered into a deed of comF,rrlmise, dated 15.02.2016, under which the petitioner paid Rs.1,40,000/_ to the de facto complainant by way of a Demand Draft bearinr; No.g67254, dated 15.09.2019, and in turn, the de facto complainant agreed to withdraw the present complaint. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No. j.

-

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the de facto complainant approached the Country Club, of which petitioner-accused No.1 is the Managing Director. During the course of investigation, as his involvement was elicited, charge sheet was filed against him. There are specific allegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against him can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial before the trial Court Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition

6. A perusal of the record discloses that the alleged incident occurred on 03.02.2016, whereas the present complaint was lodged on 12.02.2016, i.e , there is a delay of more than 9 days in lodging the complaint. The reason for such delay remained unexplained. ln the charge sheet or in the statement of de facfo complainant recorded under Section '161 of Cr.P.C., no specific overt act ig attributed with regard to the complicity of petitioner-accused No.1 nor was it averred that he had knowledge of the transaction, except stating that he is the ttlanaging Director of Country Club. Section 420 of IPC attracts only when there is inducement to defraud with dishonest intention from the inception and there should be mens rea at the time of inducement. ln the present case, no such ingredients are forthcoming from the entire a I I record against the petitioner-accused No.1

7 . Furthermore, the petitioner-accused No.1 and de facto complainant have amicably setfled their disputes and erntered into a deed of compromise, dated i5.02.2016. As per the said compromise, the petitioner-accused No.1 paid Rs.1,40,000/_ to the de facto complainant by way of a Demand Draft bearing No 967254, dated 15.09.2019 and in turn, the de facto comprainant agreed to withdraw the present complaint. lt is further brought to the notice of this court that the de facto complainant has expired. rn the conrpromise deed itself, the de facto complainant himself has unequivoc:rlly stated that he has no claims against petitioner-accused No..l .

8. ln view of the above, this Criminal petition is allc,wed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in C C.No 2356 of 2023 pending on the fire of the rearned XrV Acrditionar chief Metropolitan tVlagistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby quasl-ed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall s:and closed sD/- //TRUE COPYII ,AI-LIKARJUNA RAO STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, I Ih" XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hvdr:rabad 2 one cC to Sri B Vamshidhar nEJJv, njri,?"tibpjjitr"'=,"""" ' ff;":r?jll3e Prbric prosecutoi, iigr, cti,iii"iir.,"3-tire or reransana at

4. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED:06/1 112025

ORDER

CRLP.No.14815 of 2024 CRITVIINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED k 1fl{ ST{ ft: t)r S OATi:,YI eO 2o tJ il6 2 1. t{o'l * * b Cf