Allowed

M. Nagesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Jan 2024CRLRC/445/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner for cheating under sections 420 and 405 IPC, holding that the invested amount was genuinely used for film production and the allegation of complicity formed only a bald assertion post-transaction without prima facie basis.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case against the petitioner in C.C. No. 766 of 2016 is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed. The Impugned Order in Crl.M.P. No. 1000 of 2021 is set asid

M. Nagesh Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 44sOF 2023

¶6

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Order dated 18-03-2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1000 of 2021 in C.C. No.766 of 2016 on the file of the XVll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

M Nagesh, S/o. Janardhana Rao, Age: 54^years Occ: Business,^Ryo. Plot No.^106-4, Villa Green, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court Hyderabad through Station House Officer Police S Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

¶12

Abhinav Nallamani @ N. Abhinav Reddy, Sio. N P Reddy, aged about²³ years, Occ: Business, Fl/0o. H.NNo.2-3-887, Road No.11, Bank Colony, Nagole, Hyderabad- 500068.

¶13

(R2 lmpleaded as per Court order dated 13-09-2023 made in l.A. No.3 of 2023 in Crl.RC.445 of 2023 are amended)

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleasedto stay} all further proceedings in CC No. 766 of 2016 on the file of XVll^{Additional Chief} Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Criminal Courts, at Hyderabad^pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rama Mohan Palanki

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

TItE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.Ms 0F 2t)23

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Crirninal Revision Case is filed under sect;rons 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1923 (for short^,Cr.p.C.,) by the petitioner/accused No.2 aggrievecl by the order dated 18.03.2023 in Crl'M.P.No.1000 of 2021 in C.C.No.766 of 2016 on the file of the learned XVII Additionar Chief Metroporitarr Magistrate, Nampally, Criminal Courts, at Hyderabad, refusing to discharge the petitioner.

¶23

Heard. Perused the record.

¶24

3 Briefly the case of the prosecution is that in the month of February, 2012, accused Nos.1 and 2 approached the defacto complainant and represented that accused No.1 is the Managing Director of M/s. Sanga Mitra Arts pvt. Ltd. and that they have produced Telugu Movie 'panja, which became a major hit at box office, yielding huge profits and they can repeat such ;juccess. It is further alleged that as accused Nos.L and 2 induced the de facto

¶25

¶26

complainant to invest in film^{production,he gave sum of Rs'37.00} lakhs which was invested in^the movie'Alias Janaki'.^{It is further} alleged that Memorandum of Understanding^{and agreements} l were executed on 08.08.2012,09.04.2013^{and 25.07-2013in respect} I of financial transactions regarding^{return of amount to the de facto} complainant for any alleged violations^{of terms of agreement.} Accused No.1 issued⁽⁰⁵⁾ cheques towards^{discharge of liability,} bearing Nos.58227, 5822,582289,582308^{and 582309 for a sum of} Rs.57.00 lakhs drawn on IDBI^{Bank,BanjaraHills Branch, which} when presented by the de facto^{complainantwere dishonoured.}

¶27

The I case of the petitioner^{is that he is not a signatory to any} of the Memorandum I of^{Understandings executed between de} I facto complainant and^{accused No.1' Chequeswere issued by} accused No.1 on behalf of Sanga^{Mitra Arts and even the cheques} do not contain his signature.^{He furtherarguedthat the name of} the petitioner/accused^{No.2 is referred in the complaint onlyon} the ground that he is^{husband ofNeelimaTirumalasetti} representing the Sanga Mitra^{Arts and there is no prima faciecase} made out against hirn and^{thereforehe has to be discharged.}

¶28

¶29

¶30

Learned Magistrate found that in the cornplaint it is specifically mentioned that this petitioner along with accused No.1 induced respondent No.2 to invest in film makinp;. Since it is alleged that this petitioner, who is the husband of accused No.1 and accused No.1 conspired to deceive the de facto r:omplainant, I the comllicity of the petitioner can be ascertained dur;lg trial.

¶31

6' Learned counsel for the petitioner wourd submit that notice was sent to respondent No.2 and proof of service is filed. None appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2.

¶32

Admittedly, the transactions were during the period 2012-2013, for the purpose of making a film. It is not in dispute that the film was made. Further it is not in disprrte that the ) amountb were transferred into the account of accused No.1,s firm, I which is a proprietary concern. All the cheques were signed by accused No.1 and the Memoranclum of Understandirrg were also entered into accused No.1. Onty a bald assertion rnade in the complaint after two years of the transactions in questic,n by filing a

¶33

private i complaint that this petitioner was also complicit of inducing the de facto complainant to invest^{money, cannotbe} made b ASlS to continue criminal prosecution

¶34

To attract an offence of cheating, a person should have been induced by making false promise. Pursuant to the said act of inducement, the person should have delivered property.^Further the intention of cheating should be inception of^{the transaction.}

¶35

In the present case, from the year 2012, investments were made for production and releasing of the film namely^'alias Janaki' It is not the case that the movie was not produced. With the amounts which were allegedly invested by the^respondent No.2, movie was made. The said representation of making^{a movie} is correct even according to the de facto complainant.

¶36

Only for the reason of accused no.1 not honoring^the cheques which were given subsequently to the de facto complainant towards repayment, it cannot be said that^this petltrontr had fraudulent intention of cheating from the inception of transaction. It is not the case that the amounts which^{are given}

¶37

¶38

lvere misused bv tlr is pctitioner. The said amounts which were given by the responclent No.2 were in fact used for ttre purpose of producing the fihn. In the said circumstances, when the amounts were entrustecl to accused No.1 and also for the reason of there being a bald allegation of assisting accused No.2 in the film produced, after the amounts were paid, either criminal misappropriation or cheating are made out, criminal prosecution cannot be permitted against this petitioner

¶39

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is alltwed and the proceedings against this petitioner in C.C.No.766 of 201,6 on the file of the learned XVII Additional Chief MetropolitaLn Magistrate, Nampally, are hcreby quashed. Consequently, the Order in

¶40

Crl.M.P No.1000 of 2021, is hereby set aside.

¶41

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

SD/. T SRINIVAS DEIPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI Justice K SURENDER (For His Lordship's kind Perusal)

¶47

To,

¶48

The Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (with Records if any)

¶49

11 LR Copies

¶50

The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justi,:e and Company Affairs. New Delhi

¶51

The secretary, Advocates Association Library, High court for the state of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabid.

¶52

The XXVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.

¶53

Two ccs to the Pubric^prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶54

One CC to Sd Rama Mohan palanki, Advocate tOpUCI

¶55

Two CD Copies

PSR ly\4_

KMS

( {

HIGH COURT

KS, J

DATED: 0210112024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.445 of 2023

-t"-:
rl:- r r.l.E /(r
(;
i(
J
Z 2 ilAB z024 z
^
SPATCH €9 t

¶65

ALLOWING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE.

M. Nagesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Nagesh 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

Anthapur Sudhakar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Penmetsa Surya Mangapathi Raju Vs The State of Telangana and another

B. Rama Raju Vs The Union of India

S.K.R.S.Murthy and 5 Others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Dr.Bandi Shashikala, Karimnagar Dt., Vs Jamal Mohinuddin, Karimnagar and Anr, Rep Pp.

Jagnagani Satyanarayana Reddy Vs The State of Telangana