Disposed

Globe line Shipping Services Pvt.Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC29 Dec 2025WP/21265/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the investigation officer to allow the petitioner to submit documents and witnesses on a fixed date, and thereafter complete the investigation and file a supplementary report, as the initial final report was filed without considering the petitioner's reply.

What did the court decide?

Direction to investigation officer to examine submitted documents and file supplementary report.

Globe line Shipping Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs The State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32s5 J

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21265 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Globe.line Ship^ping Services Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Finance Manager, Sri CH. Ramakrishna Sio. CH. Kameshwar Rao Offbe at. UNIT 409,^"4TH Floor, Manjeera Trinity Corporate, KPHB Phase- 3, Kukatpally, Telangana -SOOOZ2.

¶9

...PETIT|ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'l The State of Telangana, Rep, by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, KPHB, Kukatpally, Cy6erabad Comm issio na rate, Hyderabad

¶14

The Station House Officer, Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad

¶15

Commissionerate, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.4 in not conducting proper investigation in accordance with the procedure contemplated under section^'173(2) of Cr.P.C./193(3) of BNSS, as being ittegat, arbitrary and u nco nstitutiona I consequently direct the 4th respondent to complete the investigation as contemplated under section 173(2) of Cr p.C./'193(3) of BNSS.

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to transfer the investigation of Cr.No. 544 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 on the file of

¶20

: i: tI I

¶21

the Respondent No.4 to any other Police station in cyberr rad commissionarate Jurisdiction

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶23

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the )ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High coL 1 may be pleased to direct the respondent no.4 to recover the 2 (Two) Four '/'heeler Vehicles i.e., Toyota lnnova crysta vide Registration No. TSO9FU'1626 ir rd Audi e7 with Vide Registration No.TS09FY1626 in accordance with procedure contemplated under 102 of cr.P.c. / 106 of BNSS, pending disposar of the above writ petition pending disposal of lhe above writ petition.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

Between:

¶26

1 Venkata Ravi Gurjala, S/o. G.subbarayulu Naidu, Age<l rbout 47 years, Occ. Business, Re o resented b his GPA Holder. Mr. G.Subba Naidu S/o. Gurijala Vengama Naidu, AgerJ about 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No.319/2RT, PS Nagar, Near Hockel, 3round, Vijay Nagar Colony, Hyderaba

¶27

G.Sulbarayulu Naidu, S/o. Gurijala Venkata Subbaiah, I ged about 83 years, Occ: Business,

¶28

Both the Plaintiffs are R/o..H,No.8-3-169/62, prot No.(ri, siddhartha Nagar, Vengala Rao Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶29

...lMPt_ :AD^pETtTtONERS/

¶30

PROPOSED RElj^)ONDENT No.5 & 6

¶31

AND

¶32

Globe. line Ship^ping Services Pvt. Ltd., Rep. b-y its Finarrr e Manager, Sri CH. Ramakrishna S/o CH. Kameshwar Rao OfFite at. Utrl T aOg, iih-Ff""i Manjeera Trinity Corporate, KpHB phase- 3, Kukatpally, I efangi;1a _50Obii'

¶33

...WRIT PETITTONER/ t ESpONDENT No.i

¶34

2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by. its principal Secretary, ll rme Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Qommissionera r , Hyderabad.

¶35

4 The Assistant Commissioner of potice, KpHB, Kukatpalt :y#;t;JC o mm issiona rate, Hyderabad

¶36

5 The Station House Officer, Kukatpally police Station, Cybe^.abad Com m issio ne ra te, Hyderabad.

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High Court maybe pleasedto} lmplead the Petitioners / Proposed^{RespondentsNo.5& 6 as RespondentNo-5 &} 6 in the main Writ Petition vide^{WP.No. 21265 ol 2024.}

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{P.RAJA SRIPATHI RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL} FOR SRI ISMAIL KATUBADI Counsel for the Respondents: GP^{FOR HOME} Counsel for the Proposed Respondents:^{SRI A.VENKATESH, SENIOR} COUNSEL

¶40

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶41

¶42

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'f E LANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE N.V.SHRA'I q.N KUMAR' WRIT PETITIONNo .27265 0f 202,1 DATE oFORD ER:29.12.202s

¶44

Between:

¶45

M/s. Globc line Shipping Services pvt. Ltd

¶46

. Petitioner

¶47

AND

¶48

The State of Tela.ga^a, Home Department ancl three other:;

¶49

... Il rspondents

¶50

ORDER

¶51

Heard Sri. p.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned senior counse Lppearing for the petitioner and iearnetl Gor.qlnmgn5 pleader for Hon t appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 anc.l Sri.A.Ve nkatesh, learned senior r.r unsel appearing for proposed rcsponcle,nt Nos.5 anri 6. With their consent, tl i ;writ petition is being taken up for disposal.

¶52

This writ petition is fileci questioning the action of res I rndents No.4 in not conducting proper investigation in accordance wi* the procetlure contemplated under section 172(2) of Cr.p.C/193(3) of BNSS s being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitu tionat, with a consequential prayer sc :king direction to respondent No..1 to cornplete the inr.estigation as cont(,r rplated under section 1732 173(2) of Cr.p.C/193(3) of BNSS

¶53

Brief facts stated in this writ petition are that petitiontr is a company registcred before the ROC F{yderabad on 29.01.2009, in the na r e and stylc as

¶54

¶55

!-:i

¶56

'Globe Line Shipping Services^{Pvt Ltd' The petitioner company is engagedin} import and^{export of containerizedocean cargoand many otherservices} includinginternationalshippingandlogisticssolutions.Itissubmittedthatin the year^{2020,Mrs.B Reddy Anupama was appointedas Manager HR in thc} petitioner^{comPany and taking advantage of her positionin the companr"} Mrs.B Reddy^{Anupama, in collusionwith GK Naidu and SubbahNaidu has} withdrawn company's^{funds of Rs 47} '47 '919^{/ '' and further hastakentwo (2)} four-wheeler^{vehiclesfor their personaluse i.e., Toyota Innova Crysta bearing} registration^{No.TS09FU1626 and Audi Q7 registrationNo'TS09FY1626'which} wcrc purchascd^{from the comPany's funds'The said criminal conspiracyhas} come to light^{in thc external auditof the company and whenthe petitioner} company^{requested Mrs.B Reddy Anupama' GK Naiduand SubbahNaidu' to} return the^{subject vehicles,they refused to return the same'Thereafter'} petitioner comPany^{lodgeda complaint on 12 02'2024 beforethe SHO'} Banjarahills,^{however,the samewas returnedHence'the petitioner on} 29.O4.2O24lodged^{another complaint before respondent No 4 and when the} same^{was not considered,petitionercomPanylodged another complainton} 03.05.2024,^{beforerespondent No.3 statingthat Mrs.B ReddyAnupan-ra'GK} Naidu and^{Subbah Naiduentered into criminalconspiracyand in a pre-} pianned manner^{had committed criminalbreachof trust and thcrebycheated} the company and^{siphoned the companyamount with an intention to enrich} themselves and caused^{wrongfulloss to the comPanyand requested the} respondent No.3 to^{registercomplaint and takeaction against the abovc said} persons for deliberately^{and fraudulently committingcriminal breachof trust}

¶57

¶58

and cheating. Ilowever, when the same was not con iderecl, the Finance Manager of the petitioner company, filed W.p.No.l 4r) 2 of 2024 and this Court oide ordc.r dated ir}.06.2024,passed the following r.r ler:_ "2. Lennu:d Assistnnt Coueyn111elr1 pleader for Hout,,, ltauing 'iiii'fl,,1; ;::';, ;t;)t ;u c t i o n s' "' t' n'i t i o i- t nlni' i ti' r'" s u i1 , n rt e r s e c t i o n s n o i r,' rii' nT i-"li' ;:rf ";, I ;:f;:,::;, 's,'rii"i, :, ; rr?ii,; t 1^,erabart lukatplily^{HousingBoardCoiony t} "iii" ( ommisslotprote. on tlrc complnint ,l ,tn')r,'i',.,,,., tjnted 29.04.2024. Thus, caus.e m fhis utrit petition does nt)t uroiue rcquiring atry further ndjudication.^r-"""""v'Lr 't 1^{A c?pyo.f toritteninstru.ctions} along ruith FIR is st r rti on lenrntd cototsrl for tlrc pelitioner. *; -!, ,,r,u .ol.tlte aforasnid subnission o[ Ienrncd As istnttl l,lt'(rnmeul plendtr for .H.omr, ,,o 7,rtt,r, irarrc n)i ,rq , ,ra tu be pnssed itt tltis u,rii oet :, I^{; p ;;, ; ; i'' ; ;: ;,",r :: i l ; :, !} ::;,,, ;:, 1 ;, : ;:,, :, ;!'; i ;,j th^e,rc I o. mi sct,llnr rcor rs npplicntio,,r,,l r'riy'," p"ri,n{iir,,, r, ri t pettl ton stn tttl closL.tl.,.

¶59

Learned scnior counscl appearing for the petitioner r .6ulcl submit that since the datc of registration of FIII No.544 of 2024 tjarr I 06.06.2024, the respondent No_4 did not conduct proper investigatiorr lnd though the respondent policc l-raving power to scize any property whi h may be found under circumstanccs creating suspicion of the commission <,1 any offence, has not seized the subject ve'rricles. Learned senior counsel wour r further submit that till datc the rcspondent authorities neither investigatt 1 Mrs.B Reddy Anuparna, GK Naiclu and Subbah Naiclu, nor conducted prcl er invesLigation in accordance with the prov ision contemplated under ,cc :tton 773(2) of Cr.P.C/193(3) of BNSS. Aggrieved by the same, rhis wrir periii ,n is filed.

¶60

5 Learned Government pleader for Home appearing cr respondent

¶61

Nos.1 to 4 on instruciions submits that a final report da tr t 02.07.2025 in

¶62

¶63

Crime^{No.544of 2024 dated06 06 2024 is filedbefore the learnedIV AJCJ} Cum XV^{Additionat MekopolitanMagistrate' Kukatpaily'Cyberabad (herein} after referred^{as,the trial Court,)and hasplaceda copy of finalreportdated} 02.07.2025^{before this Court, wherein itis stated that on petitioner's} complaint,^{investigation was conducted and notice underSection41(1)Cr'P C} was issued^{to accused No 1 on 19 '06'2024'It is further submitted thatfor} obtaining^{tracking details of the subjectvehicles' letterto Managersof Audi} showroom^{and Fortune Toyota Showroom were issued and it was revealed} that a^{case is pending before learned V JuniorJudge City Civil Court'} Hyderabad^{and on 09 05 2025and the said Court has directed the partiesto} maintain^{status quo}

¶64

Learned^{Government Pleaderfor Home would submit thaton} 25.06.2025,^{noticeunder Section 91 Cr'P'C was issued to the petitioner for} providing^{eye witness,documentarv evidence and other relevant documents'} however, Petitioner^{failed to compl'vthe noticedaled'75 06'2025' He would} further^{submit that since no evid'encewas placed by the petitioner and as thc} dispute^{is relating to intcrnalcorporateand business disagreements and} financial^{related matter,the respondent No'3zride proceedingbearing} No.616/ACP-KP /CyB/2025^{dated 30'06'2025' referred thecaseas Civil in} Nature and^{noticeto thateffect was also served to the petitionerthrough} registered Post^{on 02 07'2025'}

¶65

7 . Percontra,^{Iearned senior counselfor the petitionerwouldsubmitthat} pursuant^{to the notice dated25 '05 2025' petitionerthrough his legal counsel} on 01.07.2025^{submitted rclcvantdocumentsand withoutconsideringthe}

¶66

¶67

)

¶68

same/ respondent authorities had filed final report dateci t2.07.2025 in Crime No.544 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 before the hial Court. lt i further su bmitted that the respondent authorities have arso failed to c rnsir,er the main ingredients of the complaint datecl 03.05.2024 an<t lid not conduct lnvestigatioll to the extcnt of criminal elements maclc in tr-: complaint c-rated 03 05 '2024' I-earned senior counsel wourd submit that r 1e r.ehicres were purchased in the name of the petitioner company and t,r < ate the petitioner company is paying EMI,s and insurance premium. Since the vehicles are owned by the petitioner company, the saicl pcrsons . r., Mrs.B Reddy Anuparna, GK Naic.lu ancl Subbah Naic.lu, has no authorit.y t. use the vehicles.

¶69

Learned senior counscl appearing for proposed resp: tclent Nos.5 and 6 would submit that the proposed respondents are major sha -e horcrers of the petitioncr company and with the knowledge of the petition: , company, they are using the vehicles.

¶70

In the case on hantl, it ts pertincnt to note that in the ii Lal report dated 02.07.2025, tho respon<-lcnt authorities havc not nlentiol ed about the petitioner reply clated 07.07.2025 and without considerg thc same, respondent authorities have filccl thc final report dated 02.07 1025 before the trial court

¶71

After arguing at length, learned Government pleac er for Home submits that if the petitioner approach the investigation officer r nd submit the relevant documents, the same woulc{ be consiclered

¶72

¶73

¶74

At this^{stage,learned senior counsel for the petitionerPray this Court} to grant tiberty^{to petitionerto approach the investigation officer and submit} Ielevant dOcUments^{and evidencebefore the respondent authoritiesand} further pray^{this Court to direct thc rcspondent authorities to consider the} same and take^{up investigation in accordance withlaw'}

¶75

Recording^{the submission made by the learned counsel on eitherside} and since^{the finalreportdated02'07 2025 in CrimeNo 544 of 2024 dated} 06.06.2024is^{filed withoutconsidering the petitioncr'sreply dated01'07 2025 '} this Court^{deems it appropriateto disposcof the writ petition directing the} investigation^{officer to be present in the respondent No 4 poiice stationon} 30.72.2025^{at 10.30 Am ancl thc} Pctitioner^{mayapproachthe investigation} officer on^{30.12.2025 at 10'30 Am and submit relevant documentsand} witnesses^{in support of contentionsin complaintdated03 05'2024'thereafter'} theinvestigationofficcrisdirectedtocxaminetheSameandaftergivingfair opportunity^{of hearing to the pctitioncr'shall take up further investigation} strictly in^{accordancewith law and file additional/ supplementaryrePortor} charge^{sheetbeforethc trial Court'as expeditiously as possible' The petitioner} is permitted^{to take assistanccof his counselat the time of submittingthe} documents^{on 30.12.2025'}

¶76

It is made^{clear that this Court has not expressedany opinion on the} merits of the^{case and it is for the respondent authorities to examine the} documents submitted^{by the petitioncr and takc actionin accordancewith}

¶77

Iaw

¶78

¶79

With the above directions, this writ pctition is dispor cd of. As a sequel,

¶80

I.A.No.1 of 2025 (lmplead petition) and othcr miscellanc< r s petitions, if any,

¶81

pending in this rvrit pctition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶82

SD/. K.MADHAVI ASSI ;TANT REGISTRAR

,'.e.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 The^principal Secretary,^{Home Department secretariat13 rildings,Hyderabad,} State of Telangana.

¶88

2 ih;-C;r;i;ai""er^{of Police, Cvberabad Commissionera e, Hyderabad} 5 it" Ai.llirri Commissionei^{of'Police, KPHB, KukatpallCvberabad} Commissionarate,^HYderabad

¶89

4 inJ Strtion House Officer,^{Kukatpally Police Station'C1'l erabad} Commissionerate,^HYderabad.

¶90

5 One CC to SRI ISMAIL^{KATUBADI,Advocate} [OPUC] i*o CC" to GP FOR^{HOME, HighCourt for the State o' -elangana,at} Hvderabad. IOUTI

¶91

7 ohe CC to SRI A VENKATESH,^Advocate [OPUC] 8 Two CD Copies

PSK. PSK ht ,./

,./

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212025

ORDER

WP.No.21265 of 2024

, ,i-i ,: : .
./.:..: .. .)",ir:,.
ri"i'
IrD
iro
-I- 2s l
.-,('.
t.:-...o,: * !n
{'--::

¶100

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶101

\ 1
fl tl tD

Globe line Shipping Services Pvt.Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Globe line Shipping Services Pvt.Ltd. 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

Sri. Kolli Chandrasekhar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Palwai Laxmi Vs the State of Telangana

D.Chandramouli Vs Mohammed Shakeel Shaik

Smt. Boda Ramana Vs the State of Telangana

Dr.Vangarapu Prasad Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Boya Ramanjineyulu Vs The State of Telangana