Director filed complaint alleging conspiracy, forged invoices and cheating by sister's company employees; police final report said dispute was civil. Protest petition dismissed. High Court held examination of complainant's mother was permissible and outstanding business dues do not constitute cheating or criminal misappropriation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32s1 ]
IN THE HIGHCOURT FOR THESTATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITIONNO:12216 0F 2018
Between:
T. SiddharthaRao, S/o T AchyuthaRao' -Occ'. Director'tvl/s PanamTele SolutionsPrivateLimite'd,'Ri""Pi;'N" Ji" p ano T Colony' opp Vikrampurt
-olony, Karkhana, Secunderabad
... Petitioner/Petitioner/De-factoComplainant
AND
...Respondent
address. lnfiniteLink "i'Sbrrtion.'p,ivaie
**7
Telecommunications private Limited) 3rd Froor, centrar praza, somajiguda, Hyderabad--500082
Telecommunications Private Limited) 3rd Floor,CentralPIaza, Soma'jiguda, Hyderabad-500082
... Respondents/Acc used Nos. 2 to22
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds of CriminalPetition,the High Courtmay be pleased to call for the records relating to the order dated 26.09.2018passed in Crl.R.P.No-330 of 2014 by the lVletropolitanSessions Judge,Hyderabad confirming the order dated 25.O7 .2014passed in Crl.lV.P.No.2'l'19 of 20'13by the Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad(in Crime No.-l 36 of 2012 of PS Karkhana) andquash the same directingthe trial Court to take cognizance of the complaint.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying thatin the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of CriminalPetition,the High Courtmay be pleased to direct the Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabadto take cognizance of the complaint in Crl.lVl-P.No.2119of 20'13 in Crime No.136 of 2012 of PS Karkhana, pending disposal of the aboveCriminal Petition.
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2018
Petition under Section 9'1 r/w Section482 ofCr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [/emorandum ofGrounds ofCriminal Petition, the High Court may bepleased to issue summons tothe Station House Officer' Karkhana Police Station toproduce the enclosuresappendedto the original complaint in FlR.No.136 of 2012 before thisHonourable Court.
This Petition coming on for hearing, uponperusing thel\rlemorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing thearguments of Sri Sornasekhar Vaddi, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri MVivekanandaReddy,AssistantPublic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and SriM Pratap Singh, Advocate for the Respondent No.2,3,4,5,9,10, 13 14 &17.
The Court delivered the following: Judgment
-i-ra(...-..r ry
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.L22L6 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
2
expeditious investigation. The police hled hnal reportstating that the dispute was civil in nature.
4 A protest petition was filed in Crl.M.P.No.2119 of 2013before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Secunderabad. Learned Magistrate dismissed the petition mainly on theground that Smt.T.Sulochana Rao, who is the realmother of the defacto complainant/petitioner herein and 2"a respondent/A1 Mrs. Lavanya Lewis, stated that the petitioner did not invest anyamount in the company.
3
7 The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not extracted since all the judgments form part of the impugned order.
4
rv r{ai:'. t.. i!t$3:rrt '**?'--:+7,
5
employees had committed theft of the said furniture or'laptops as evident from the investigation done by the police and a_lso the statement of the mother of the petitioner.
6
witnesses as argued by the counsel, either during investigation or during the procedure of taking cognizance under Section 2OO of Cr.P.C. For the sake of convenience, Section 2OO of Cr.P.C ts
extracted hereunder
*2OO. Exdmination of complainant.
A Maqistrate takinq coqnizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and th.e u-titnesses present, if onu, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to witing and shalL be signed bg ttrc ampLainant and the uitnesses, and also bg the Magistrate:
Prouided that u.then thE complaint is made in uiting, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the uitnesses -
lg)ifa public seruant actingor purportingto act in the dischargeof his officiol duties or a Court has made the amtrtlaint; or
[Uifthe Magistrate makes ouer the co.se forinquiry or tiolto another Magi.strgte under sedion 192:
Prouided fufther that if th,e Maqi.strote makes ouer the case to another Maqistrate under sedion 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Maqistrate need not re-exomine them.'
7
I I I I
I I I
cognizance. Further, the learned Sessions Court,s refusa-l to
entertain the Revision Petition also cannot be disturbed.
miscellaleous appiications, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTI FFICER
I
To,
ADK/gh w
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:0510212025
JUDGMENT
CRLP.No.12216 of 2018
(
ot
22 SEP zffi
,c-
+
Di-sr-,j] {l H tj.o
DISMISSING THE GRLP
p(
aq
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Magistrate could examine the mother of the defacto complainant during the enquiry on the protest petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
Whether the refusal to take cognizance on the protest petition, treating the company disputes as civil in nature, warranted interference.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
T. Siddhartha Rao
The State of Telangana, Through SHO, Karkhana PS, Secunderabad
Mrs. Lavanya Lewis
K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
