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
SKS,J
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
SKS,J
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.
SKS,J
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.
(2020) SCC OnLine MP 4352
(2014) 8 SCC 470
AIR 1992 SC 604
AIR 1960 SC 866
SKS,J
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.
SKS,J
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
(2012) 10 SCC 155
SKS,J
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
SKS,J
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
