Dismissed

M/s Gayi Adi Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Apr 2025WP/12618/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police declined to register FIR on a company's complaint of cheating in a share purchase deal, advising it to approach NCLT. Holding the dispute was breach of contract, not cognizable offence, the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging that communication.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

M/s Gayi Adi Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ I

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY^{FIFTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO NNO^{:12618 OF 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/sGaviAdiHoldingsPfi.Ltd,RepbyitsLegalofficer/AuhtorisedSignitory ii,ii]sli"1i"i"iri"vJSio^{rirrvr.Ad"o-51yearscio KullTowers,eth floor,D.no.} ' i: i i)s'i Zia' i6s, s.F rodo, bdg um pei' hvdera bad -5000 1 6

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State^{of Telangana, Rep by the Principal Secretary HomeDepartment} Secretariat buildings,^HYderabad

¶12

2.ThecommissionerofPolice,Hyderabadcommissionerate,BanjaraHills, Hyderabad

¶13

The Dv. Commissioner^{ofPolice, CentralCrime Station'Detective} Department, Hyderabad^{City,Telangana}

¶14

Mr. Naveen^{Parashar,S/o Mr. Janak} labu faraslar-^{Aged Major'Occ} ' iirii"LiJnyo ts9, sptul Nagar, Bharatpur' Rajasthan-321001

¶15

Mr. Ramavtar^{Garg, S/o Not knownAg-ed IVIajor, OccBusinessFl/o A-21'Sri} " i;;iriiEffi; corolv, o.oii Gautham-Budha Nasar, Uttar Pradesh

¶16

Ms. Beena^{Garg, W/o Not known Age-d} V1aj91,^{Occ Business Fl/o A-21' Sri} " iiiriii-E"itre C-oionv, orori Gauthani Budha Nagar, uttar Pradesh

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court maybe} pleasedtoissueaWritordirectiononeinthenatureofwr|tofmandamus declaring the^{proceedings of the respondents bearing crlDD2lo6o6l2024l936} dated 07.10.2O24 as^{illegal, contraryto law, judicial precedents, constitutional} rights and consequently^{direct the respondentsto conduct investigationintothe} complaint of the^{petitionerdated 23.09.2024by setting aside the proceedingsof}

¶19

.i:.1a

¶20

therespondentsb€aringCrlDD2lo6O6t2o24t936dated07.10.2024andbe pleased to pass orders as the^{court seesfit.}

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the lircumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filedin support of the petition,the Highcourlmay be pleasedto} call for the records^as to^{the investigation conducted by .he respondentswith} reference to bearing^{crtDD2to6O6t2o24t936dated 07.10.2()lz4pendingdisposal} of the above^writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI J.C.FRANCIS}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1to 3: GP FORHOME}

¶25

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{T. VINODKUMAR}

¶27

Writ etition No.126 18 of²⁰²⁵

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard learned counsel^{for the petitioner, learnedGovernment} Pleader for Home appearing^{for respondentNos'1 io 3, and with the} consent of the^{learned counsel appearing for the parties,the writ Petition} is taken up for hearing^{and disposalat the admissionstage'}

¶30

Having regard to the^{manner of disposal of the Writ Petitlonat the} admission stage^{and the nature of /s involved, this Court is of the view} that notice to unofficial^{respondentNos.4 to 6 is not necessary for} adjudication of the^{present Writ Petition.}

¶31

Shorn of unnecessary^{details,the case of the petitioner,in brief,is} that though it had approached^{the respondents-authoritiesand submitted} a complaint dt.23.og.2024^{setting out the details as to how the unofficial} respondents herein have^{cheated the petitionerand requested the said} authorities to conduct^{investigationby registering FirstInformation} Report, the respondents^{instead of conducting investigation haveissued} impugned^proceedings, dt.O7.lO.2024,^{advising the petitioner to approach} NCLT to seek redressal of its^{grievance by stating that no specific} provision exists under BNS/IPC for the alleged offences,^{which action of} the respenCents-authorities it is contended^{as highly illegal,arbitraryand} contrary to law. -l

¶32

¶33

per ccntra, learned Government pleader for llome appearing on behalf of resJtondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that l_e contents of the compraint made bv the petiiioner on 23.0g.2024 would revear that the same relates to commercial transaction involving |ie share purchase between the pctitioner and the unofficiar respondents rerein and since the said dispute ,tannot be gone into by the responde rts_authonties, the respondents h,:ve issued the said communication advisilq the petitioner to avail remedies by approaching NCLT.

¶34

I have t,;ken note of the respective contentions urqed.

¶35

Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contendetl that the contents of complaint clr:ar,, ,1,r.,or"s commission of cognizable offence, a perusal of the content:; of the complaint would show that thr: same relates to transfer of shar:s of the petrtioner company.

¶36

This Court in the case of Ramky fnfrastructtrre Limited v/s. State of Telangana and otherl, on a similar challernge being made, had held that jn relation to commercial transaction involving share purchase agreernent, the action of respondent police in not registering FIR cannot be found fault with

¶37

'w.p.No.24495 of 20 1) dt.2t.o4 )o)_a

¶38

¶39

B. Further, in a recent judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rikhab Biranir v,/s. The State of llttar Pradeslf, had elucidated the difference between 'cheating' and 'breach oF contract,.

¶40

Since, the contents of the complaint lodged by.the petitioner with the respondents-a uthorities indicates breach/violation of the terms of the agreement, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid communication issued by the 3'd respondent authority cannot be held to be either illegal or dereliction in discharge of police duties.

¶41

For the aforesaid reason, this Coud is of the view that the present Writ Petition as filed is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶42