Dismissed

T. Venkateswara Rao v. State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC9 Nov 2021CRLP/3340/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed to quash proceedings for cheating under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Court held that allegations involve business mismanagement and manipulation, constituting the offences. Investigation to proceed without arrest.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Police directed to complete investigation and file Final Report/Charge Sheet without arresting the petitioner.

T. Venkateswara Rao Vs State of Telangana and another — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3340 OF 2020

¶5

Between:

¶6

T. Venkateswara Rao, S/o'T. Krishna Rao resident of House No. 213, A WHO Colony, Sector-AKharkanaSecundrabad,Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSEDNo.I AND

¶7

State of Telangana , Represented by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Telangana Hyderabad. .. Respondent No. 1

¶8

J.V. Krishna Reddy, S/o.Uma Sankar, R/o.Flat No. 302, KK Enclave, Dharamkaram Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶9

..RESPONDENT NO. 2 / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶10

.^{PetrtionunderSection 482 of Cr.P.C praying thatin the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to call forthe records relating to FIR No. 100 of 2020 dated 18.06.2020 on thefile of the Trimulghery Police Station and^quash the same.

¶11

LA. NO: 2OF 2020

¶12

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} stay all further^proceedings in FIR^{No. 100 of 2020 dt 18.06,2020 on the file of the} Trimulghery Police Station.

¶13

l.A. NO:2 oF 2021

¶14

Petition under section 482 of^{cr.P.c praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal^{Petition,the High court may be pleased to} extend the interim orders dld:^{241812020 in I A No. 2 I 2020 in crl. P. No.3340/2020.}

¶15

l.A. NO:3 oF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 482 ol^{Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminalPetition,the High court may be pleased to} extend the interim orders dated:24.08.2020^{in lA No.2 I 2O2O in Crl.P. No.3340r2020'}

¶17

This Petition coming on^{for hearing'uponperusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of criminal Petition^{and upon hearing the argumentsof Sri lril.V. PRATAP} KUMAR ,Advocate for the^{Petitioner and the Asst. PublicProsecutor on behalf of the} Respondent No.'1 and of Sri^{Pattabhivemulapati,Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.}

¶18

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶19

(

¶20

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SHAMEEM^AKTHER e!'iminal^{Petition No.3340 of 2O2O}

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/A.1, seeking to^quash the^proceedings against him in Crime No.100 of 2020 of Trimulghery Police Station, Hyderabad City, registered for the ofFences^punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC read with Section 34^IPC.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the^{petitioner/A1,} the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent No.1/State anc perused the record.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner/Al would submit that the^{petitioner/A1} is falsely implicated in the subject case. The petitioner/Al is only an employee of the firm belonging to respondent No.2, which is involved in electronic equipment trade. All financial transactions, including control of cashbook, locker and bank accounts were exclusively dealt with by the respondent No.2. Though the^{petitioner/A1} had^{quit his} employment under respondent No.2 in the^year 2018 and set^up his own business in Mehdipatnam, the respondent No.2 Filed the subject complaint in the year 2020 alleging that^the petitioner/Al cheated him and misappropriated the funds and stocks belonging to his firm. There is neither^{dishonest intention} nor misappropriation on the^part of the^{petitioner/A1as alleged,} so as to constitute the alleged offences.^{The allegationsin the}

¶25

¶26

subject FIR do not prima facie constitute the offences alteged and ultimately prayed to allow the Criminal Petition as prayed fo r.

¶27

As seen from the material placed on record, this Court vide order, dated 24.08.2020, passed in LA.No.2 of 2020 in this Criminal Petition, directed the police concerned not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner/A1 and for issuance of notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C to him. The said interim order reads as Follows:

¶28

"Post on 28.09.2020.

¶29

Till then, the first respondent police is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. However, this order will not preclude the first respondent police from investigating the matter in a fair and transparent manner as per larv, which includes issuance of a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C."

¶30

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner/A1 has been complying with the conditions of notice issued under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. by the police concerned in the subject crime,

¶31

The allegations against the petitioner/A1 are with regard to the mismanagement of the business and manipulation of accounts. The interest and personal Iiberty of the petitioner/A1 is already protected by this Court. Since the allegations leveled against the petitioner/A1 in the subject crime constitute the offences alleged, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings against him in the subject crime. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following order:

¶32

(

¶33

"The police concerned shall complete^the investigation and file Final Report/Charge^{Sheet, as} the case may be, before the Court^{concernedin the} subject Crime No.1OO ol 2O2O, without^arrestingthe petitioner/A1. The petitioner/A1 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer for smooth conduct of investigation,"

¶34

With the above observations/directions, the Criminal

¶35

Petition is disposed of.

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions, if any,^pending in this Criminal

¶37

Petition, shall stand closed,

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

SD/.M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR v

¶40

SECTION OFFICER

¶41

¶42

The )fill Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Trimulghery Police Station, Hyderabad City , Hyderabad.

¶43

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana (OUT)

¶44

One CC to SRl. M V. PRATAP KUMAR,Advocate [OPUC]

¶45

One CC to SRl. V. PATTABHI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

Two CD Copies

¶47

One Spare Copy

2-TR

HIGH COURT

DATED:09111120?-1

ORDER

CRLP.No.3340 ot²⁰²⁰

Y + 1 ytE STAT
(
icJ
io 10 DEC20a cli
ti:t
19
1,.:-^"-r-r.(.-1

¶54

DISPOSING OF ]'HE^CRL.PETITION

¶55

%
'ot \ v

T. Venkateswara Rao v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Venkateswara Rao v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yellaiahgari Ravi Vs State of Telangana

Kalyan Chakravarthy Vs The State of Telangana and another

M. Sai Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

Chimmala Swetha Vs Maria Fernandez

Kanakanala Narayana Vs The State of Telangana

Thota Venkateswarlu , Kondal and another Vs The State of Telangana