Dismissed

Akshay Asthana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Oct 2021CRLP/6455/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses two petitions for quashing criminal proceedings under sections 320(6) and 320(2) of CrPC. The court observed that the dispute was already settled before the Lok Adalat, rendering the criminal petition infructuous, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed as infructuous because the dispute was settled before Lok Adalat.

Akshay Asthana Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE H,GH COURT FOR A i,ii.rH.^BIlrE^{o F rE} LA N cA NA

¶2

",i:3+I"1i.1fl 5'x,Blt"i,?gL1'..-

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

Between;

¶6

CR IM INA PETITto N NO: 50 20 1

¶7

.liili'l$"t"tr}it":;i,;l#ilffifl ffi [-r,:,:[{r?ffi^rwr,r: 2. Lammi Rajender Lammi Rajender Rajender Kun

¶8

Lammi Rajender Lammi Rajender Rajender Kun

¶9

5#:Urffi l;h;g,;-,,t$3l#l,fl!,ilff^{"S;,#,^,,iii,;,REt;J*}

¶10

"{r*tu.*iHfi Gudem Kishore Kumar

¶11

fr^."'gfl hi'if,,il,q',fi }:#f*s,TiJt'fi ?,;^^88fl "ii

¶12

1. Shaik Zaheerud_din, S/o.Shri.y.Basha MohinudJin. c f^j:i:, ; il t k"'^" N; i ;^" bl';;Xi "' ft:,:!,l) " T;,?J^.['JB J"^{"a jrl",l,} 3fl "^Xi;.,

¶13

5 Vishnumolakala Krishna Chgilalyl, S/o_ Shri.V.Vishnuy, Ag ed. 39 Years, Occ. . Degree College

¶14

E*-J'#:FYS:h"X: il,U":;1,'i:,"-s"L^{ir''s " ;i'llivl'N e}

¶15

6 Midhun Ir/.K., s/o. Shri.pG.tr,/urari, Aged. 23 years, Rl/o.27, Nakshatra Viilas, Behind Satzee Gardens, naghuhJ;es"C;l,ivl drjl'prr, R.R.District, Tetansana.

¶16

1. Chakilam Naresh Kumar, .9/o.Shri.C.N.Bala Kumar, Aged. 3g years, Occ. pvt Emptoyee, R/o.H.No.1-6-4s, ptoi r.ro.i+,- B.i;l;,n* Nagar Green Fietds Colony, Alwal, R.R.District, Tblrngan".-

¶17

...PET|T|ONERSiACCUSED Nos.1 to 7

¶18

AND

¶19

The State.of rerangana, Rep. by its pubric prosecutor, High court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶20

Walsons Services private Limited., having its office at plot No.1. Navva Residency, New Vidya Nagar, Niredmet,^"namatrishna puiam. ff "llr'"lr.r through Authorized Representative Mr.l\zlanoj Badhwar, Slo.Sri.C.G.BaOnwar {ged^{about.48Years, Occ. Working as} GM Operations ln IV/s. WaIson;'Services Pvt. Ltd., Ryo. Ivlehdipatnam] Hyderabjd.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶22

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 quash the proceedings in c.c. No. 4362 of 2019 pending on the file of Hon'ble Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District in the interest of justice.

t.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

Between:

Walsons Services Private Limited., having its office at plot No.1, Navya Residency, New Vidya Nagar, Niredmet, Ramakrishna puram, Hyderabad, through Authorized Representative lr,4r.Manoj Badhwar, S/o.Sri.C.G.Badhwar, Aged about . 48 Years, Occ . Working as G lr,4 Operations ln [V/s. Walsons Services Pvt. Ltd., R/o. lr,4ehdipatnam-, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶27

AND

¶28

1 ?[il1fl"{[,]:;:i:r-iexefr^ilff rq1';:##'rilq;i{'}:,tr:. 2 jj'#'ffi^3L';'R::'r'i

¶29

"ffi

¶30

im"#-i,H'qi}l#1flde}?+h,:

¶31

3 sli.tJ Ss' ff^"rl SU A, f^{"r,:$::ill "l,'j[j'i,BT fi*5 il8li'i'?nn^ E:fl} '3? Gth;sri;,^{srriiinsampattvR R District' Telangana}

¶32

4 shaik Zaheeruddin,^{S/o.Shri.Y.BashaMohinudq9. 09. Pvt Employee'Aged40} Years, Fl/o. Block^{rtr"i+' - <iuittei llo za2' Pol'ce Lane' Begumpet'} Secunderabad,^Telangana

¶33

5 . Vishnumolakala^{Krishna Chaitanya, S/o- Shri'V Vishnuy'Aged 39 Years' Occ'} pvt. Emolovee, nyo.f-r.r.l-o.6-)-SbB, -S.f-.Jr1.S. colony.' N.G. Degree College Backside, Hid. Road,^{Nalgonda, Telangana.}

¶34

trilidhun M.K., S/o.^{Shri.P.G.Murali, Aged. 23 Years, Wo27-' Naks[atraVillas'} gehlnd Saize'e Gardens, Raghuhomes-Colony, Balapur, R.R.District, Telangana'

¶35

Ci'at itam Naresh Kumar,^{SJo.Shri.C.N.BalaKumar, Aged. 38 Years,Occ. Pvt} Employee, R/o.H.No.1-6-45, Plot^{No.14,B.YadammaNagar Green Fields} Colonv, Alwal, R.R.District, Telangana. ..RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO⁷

¶36

B. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hvderabad'

¶37

...RES'.NDENT/RES''NDENT No.2

¶38

Petition under Section 320 (6) 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 permit the petitioner herein to compromise the case with the Respondents 1 to 7 he rein/petitione rs and the proceedings against the Respondents 1 to 7 he re in/petitione rs may be quashed in C.C.No.4362 o,f 2019 pending on the file of Hon'ble Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District in the interest of justice.

¶39

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶40

Petition under section 320 (2) 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 record the terms of compromise and quash the proceedings rn c.c.No.4362 of 2019 pending on the file of Hon'ble Xll Additional lvletropolitan Magistrate, Kukatparry, cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District in the interest of justice.

¶41

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal^petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri s. Bhaskaran, Advocate for the Petitioner and the pubric prosecutor (TG) on beharf of the Respondent No..1 and of Sri M.S. Achyuth Bharathwaj, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶42

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶43

THE HON,BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER IN T T F

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A7 would submit that the subject dispute was setued before Lok Adalat and therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this Crim in a I Petition.

¶46

2' Recording the said submission, the criminar petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶47

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal

¶48

Petition shall stand closed.

SD/-K.VENKAIAH

To,

//TRUE COPY/i

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

The Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

¶56

The Station House Officer, lvladapur, Cyberabad.

¶57

One CC to Sri S. Bhaskaran, Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

One CC to Sri M.S. Achyuth Bharathwaj, Advocate tOpUCl

¶59

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶60

Two CD Copies

¶61

One Spare Copy .^{(Compromise Joint Memoenclosed herewith)} gbr

HIGH^COURT

DATED:^0511012021

ORDER

CRLP.No.6455 of 2021

1 r{E s I{
(
o 2 2 0cT 2021
a.a

¶67

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS

7, Chakilam Naresh Kumarf S/o,Shri,C,N,Bala Kumar. Aged: 3B Years, R,/o.H,N o,7-6-45, Plot No.14, occ i M^€*y''.t'- B.Yadamma Nagar Green Fields Colony, Alwal, R. R. District, Telangana. ....Respondents/

¶73

Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1to 7

¶74

The State if Telangana

¶75

Rep, by its Public Pros6cutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. ....Respondent/R.No.2.

¶76

4*-*"

¶77

The Petitioner/Defacto Complainant company lodged^a complaint through its Authorised Signatory namely^Sri'Dasika Kumar Vishwanath, S/o.Sri,Dasika Purnachandar Rao,^{who was} working as General Manager in Petitioner/Defacto^Complainant company with the^police Madhapur, against^{the petitioner/} accused No.1 & 2 basing on which the^{policeMadhapur} Regisrered a case under Crime No.37912018 on^{23.04.2018 for} the offence Under Section 406, 420 & 120(b)^{of IPC. Later on the} police Madhapur, after completirrg investigation filed the charge sheet against the^{petltioners/accused} No,1 to 7^{before the} Hon'bie XII Addl. Metropolltan Magistrate, Kukatpally,^Cyberabad and the same is^pending vide C.C.No.4362/2079

¶78

The com olaint companv discloses^{the followin q facts:}

¶79

That on 23.04.2018 one Sri.Dasika^{Kumar Vishwanath,} working as General Manager in M/s,Walsons^{ServlcesPvt, Ltd', on} behalf of the company lodged a written^{complaint with Police} Madhapur ( Guttala), Cyberabad,^{RangaReddyDistricty,stating} that that their company is a^{Private Limited companyand having} its office at Plot No.1,^{Navya Residency,New Vidya Nagar,} Neredmet, Ramakrishna Puram,^{Hyderabad.The Said company} deals with the business^{of providing securityservicesand} solutions to its clients^{and it is one of the market leaders in the} security industry. It is^{further stated in the complaint that the}

Contd...3

o,. \

,I i I I

I I i

petitioner/accused^{No.1 had joined in the companyon} 01.05.2016^{and his name was referred by the petitioner/accused} No.2 whO^{was working with one of the biggest client of the} complainant^{company namely M/s'Optum Global Solutions Pvt'} Ltd., situated^{at Madhapur, Hyderabad'In the month of Feb''} 2018, M/s.Optum^{Global Solutions Pvt' Ltd'' informed to the} complainant^{company that there was large scale discrepancy in} the attendance^{detaits of the security guards deployedat their} sites and that^{the petitioner/accusedNo'1 ( who was workingas} Assignment^{Manager with the complainantcompany and the} petitioner/accused No.2^{( who was working as Senior Manager -} Physical & Transport^{Security, Real Estate with Optum)were} involved in committing^{financial fraud and enrbezzlement of} monies. It is further^{stated in the complaint thart M/s'Optum} alleges that^{there were 42 face security guards who were shown} to be deployed^{at its sites ancl their attendanceswere falsely} prepared by the^{petitioner/accusedNo'1 and approved by} petitioner/accusedNo.2incollutsionwithotherstodefraudOptum ofitsmonies.Basedonsucltfabricatedattendancesbogus invoiceswerepreparedbythepetitioner/accusedNo'linconcelrt with the^{petitioner/accusedNo.2 through the computerizeci} system of the^{complainantand submittedtoOptumwho} unbeknownst of their^{fraud used to honourthe invoices by} crediting the^{payments to the Bank Account of the complainant.} Basing on which the Police^{Madhapur Registered a case in crime} No.37912018 on 23.04.2018^{against the petitioner/accusedNo'1} & 2 for the offence Under^{Section 406,420& 120 (b) of IPC'} Later on the^police Madhapur,^{after completing investigation filed} the charge sheet agairrst^{the petitioners/accused No' 1 to 7} before the Hon'ble XII Addl.^{Met.ropolitanMagistrate,Kukatpally,} Cyberabad and the same is^{pendingvide C.C.No.4362/2079}

Contd...4

/* /

4 1

it is submitted 4 the accused/respondents No.1 to 7 filed criminal petition ,o.tnu, " ;:' :; : :X f ;r^ ;,'ri,,:r :::'^{:' :;; 11il:} ;^: "'" J: Magistrate' Kukatpally, cyberabad, Ranga Reddy distri.,.'ooo"tun

¶90

4' It is submitted that at the intervention of erders and we, wishers the dispute between accused and comprainant resorved amicabry and the matter is settred. In view of the settrement reached, the respondents/accused No.1 to 7 and the petitioner/ Defacto complainant company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dt,06.08 .ZOZ'. (The copy of the same is filed for the kind perusar of this Hon'bre 60urt). The terms and conditions of the MoU may be preased to consider as part and parcer of this petition' As per the terms of tde MoU the respondents/accused No.1 to 7 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.42,00 ,OOO/_ to the Petitioner/Defacto complainant company towards full and final settlement. The petitioner/Defacto complainant company presently through its Authorised Signatory Sri,Manoj Badhwar, S/o.Sri.C.G.Badhwar, working as GM Operations accepted for the same on behalf of the company and the petitioner/Defacto Complainant company is not ihtended to prosecute the case against the Accused/Respondents No. 7 to 7 and the comprainant company has no objecilon to quash the proceedings in C.C.No 4362 0f 2019 pending on the fire of Hon'bre XII Addr. Metroporitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District,

¶91

It is therefore prayed that this Hon,ble Court may be pleased to record the terms of compromise and quash the proceedings C.C,No 4362 of 2019 pending on the file of Hon,ble XII Addl, Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District in the interest of justice and pass such oLher order

¶92

Contd...5

¶93

)o 5

¶94

or orders as this Hon'bre court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶95

ca 3ER
ti (,
s
Petition
Respondent No.2/Defacto ainant
1. Akshay Asthana (A_1)
l'<br>a'\ V - /+)t-
',/ '.6t -v
\o1"--
2. .Iammi Rajender Kumar ( A-2)
t rLt"
3. Gudem Kishore Kumar
(A-3)
bv'\ . ''
4. lihaik Zaheeruddin
(A-4)

¶96

Vishnumolat<al a KrishnaChaitanya (A_S)

¶97

Mid un M.K. (A-6) fi*q 7. ghakilam Naresh Kumar (A_7)

¶98

Counsel fo e Respondents Counse for the petitioner Place : Hyderabad, Date : O9.Og.2O2r

Akshay Asthana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay Asthana v. The State of Telangana

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

T. S. K. Ashwin Kumar Vs Tubati Srivalli

Sayeed Ul-Akther , Hyder Vs The State of Telangana and another

Thirupathi Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Nilagal Govardhan Reddy Vs The State Of Telangana

SaparapuPhani Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of Telangana

Gurram Abhishek Vs the State of Telangana