Telangana High Court
Bhumireddi Avinash vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 23 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8171 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.70 of 2022 dated 26.08.2022 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), Section 66-D of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'Act, 2000') and Section 3 of the Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishment Act, 1999 (for short 'Act, 1999').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.10.2020 the respondent No.4 lodged a complaint stating that he saw an advertisement about STEMCOR MAX HEDGE application and its website www.stemocromaxhedge.com in Google and when he contacted the mobile numbers shown thereof viz., +44-1474770338, +44-13222522443 he was given a briefing about the app related to online marketing through which the customers make their investments and the Company in turn refunds the 5% of the said amount as commission on everyday 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.8171 of 2022 basis upto 60 working days and in case, the primary customer gets any other customer through him, then 10% commission would be given to him on his investment. The said briefing was given to the respondent NO.4 through mail ID i.e., [email protected] and also through WhatsApp. Thereafter, the respondent NO.4 believed in the policy of the Company and through the payment gateway of the website of Company, he invested an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- through his Andhra Bank Account bearing Ac.No.052410100108336. He made investments from 06.09.2020 to 14.09.2020. Later, as per the policy of the Company, the respondent No.4 was supposed to receive the refund amount but he received refund of Rs.15,320/- only, as such, when he tried to contact the Company through their WhatsApp numbers and mail-IDs, there was no response from the end of Company. That being so, the respondent No.4 realized that a fraud was played with him by the Company and that the management of STEMCORE MAXHEDGE APP cheated him and lured Rs.1,44,680/-.
3. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police investigated the case and upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against four accused persons who worked for STEMCORE MAX HEDGE app. Aggrieved thereby, the accused 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.8171 of 2022 No.3 filed this Criminal Petition praying to quash the proceedings against him.
4. Heard Sri SSR Murthy, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.3, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.4/de facto complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only a web designer who has nothing to do with the business or activities or earnings of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. He further submitted that the petitioner is a freelancer developer in Vizianagaram, Vizag, and if anyone browses in Google for the web developers, his name will be displayed along with his contact number and in the same way, the Company contacted the petitioner over phone call during the lockdown period in May 2020. He asserted that the accused persons offered the petitioner to develop their website and accordingly, he has developed their website and handed over the same to the Company and thereafter, he never communicated with the Company but all of a sudden one fine day the Police registered a case against him along with other accused persons and arrayed him as accused No.3.
4
SKS,J Crl.P.No.8171 of 2022
6. In addition, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that at page No.3 of the charge sheet the Police has clearly mentioned that accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 have committed the offence and the same indicates that the petitioner is innocent. He asserted that in the case of Dayle De'Souza Vs. Government of India 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the criminal law should not be set into motion as a matter of course or without adequate and necessary investigation of facts on mere suspicion or when the violation of law is doubtful. He contended that though crime was registered against the petitioner, no case was registered against the financial establishment. He further contended that the petitioner is falsely dragged into the case and that he has nothing to do with the daily affairs of the Company who played fraud.
7. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of India 2, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 3 and RP Kapur Vs. State of Punjab 4. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. 1 (2020) SCC OnLine MP 4352 2 (2014) 8 SCC 470 3 AIR 1992 SC 604 4 AIR 1960 SC 866 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.8171 of 2022
8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and that there are about two thousand victims who were trapped in the hands of the STEMCOR MAX HEDGE Company. He contended that there is ample evidence against the petitioner as well and that he is not innocent. He asserted that the other accused persons were already in the business of multilevel marketing and with an intention to cheat innocent people they started their business of online trading to make easy and fast money by adopting deceitful means and for the purpose of developing a website, they approached the petitioner and offered handsome remuneration of Rs.5,00,000/- and also advised him to give ideas to them to attract more and more customers. Likewise, the petitioner developed the website and also gave ideas to attract more customers by way of technological means and ways. That apart, certain amounts were also transferred to the account of petitioner for which the petitioner raised no objection. Therefore, reiterated that there are triable issues in the case, as such, prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6
SKS,J Crl.P.No.8171 of 2022
9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 5, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
10. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that according to prosecution the petitioner who is arrayed as accused NO.3 is involved in the fraud played by STEMCOR MAX HEDGE and has cheated several innocent persons under the guise of offering high interest and high returns over their 5 (2012) 10 SCC 155 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.8171 of 2022 investments. On the other hand, it is the specific contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is only a web designer who was approached by the Company by way of securing contact details through browsing in Google, for the purpose of developing an application and that he has nothing to do with the daily affairs of the Company.
11. Perusal of the record would reveal that the respondent No.4 invested a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- in the STEMCOR MAX HEDGE through its online app., and though the said amount was transferred to the bank accounts of accused Nos.1 and 4, it is noted that the accused Nos.1 to 3 were holding funds of Rs.20,54,758/- in HDFC account bearing No.59209704658932 which belongs to accused NO.1 ; Rs.19,00,000/- in ICICI bank account bearing No.053505015213 which belongs to accused No.2 ; Rs.14,69,938/- in Kotak Bank account bearing No.5712730672 which belongs to accused No.2 and Rs.5,24,565/- in Syndicate Bank account bearing No.32682200012676 which belongs to petitioner/accused No.3., and the same shows that the said amounts belong to innocent people who were trapped. However, though learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner was insisted to hold the said amount for a period of time and that he has nothing to do with the said amount, it is 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.8171 of 2022 pertinent to note that the said amount belongs to the innocent people who got cheated under the guise of higher interest and returns in investment.
12. In view thereof, it can be concluded that there are triable issues in this case which can be decided only after full fledged trial. Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to consider the averments made in the complaint against the petitioner/accused No.3. Furthermore, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori (supra) this Court is of the view that there are no merits in this Criminal Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:23.04.2024 PT