Telangana High Court
M. Nagesh vs The State Of Telangana on 2 January, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Revision Case No. 445 OF 2023
Between:
M. Nagesh S/o: Janardhan Rao, Age: 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o:
Plot No.106-A, Villa Green, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District.
... Petitioner/accused No.2
And
1. The State of Telangana., rep by
its Public Prosecutor High Court
For the State of Telangana, at
Hyderabad.
... Respondent No.1/State
2. Abhinan Nallamani @ N. Abhinav Reddy
S/o: N.P.Reddy, Age: 23 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: H.No.2-3-887, Road No.11, Bank Colony,
Nagole, Hyderabad
...Respondent No.2
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 02.01.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No
the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.R.C. No. 445 of 2023
% Dated 02.01.2024
# M. Nagesh S/o: Janardhan Rao, Age: 54 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: Plot No.106-A, Villa Green, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District.
... Petitioner/accused No.2
And
1. The State of Telangana., rep by
its Public Prosecutor High Court
For the State of Telangana, at
Hyderabad. ... Respondent No.1/State
2. Abhinan Nallamani @ N. Abhinav Reddy
S/o: N.P.Reddy, Age: 23 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: H.No.2-3-887, Road No.11, Bank Colony,
Nagole, Hyderabad
...Respondent No.2
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rama Mohan Palanki
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor for
State
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred Nil
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.445 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by
the petitioner/accused No.2 aggrieved by the order dated
18.03.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1000 of 2021 in C.C.No.766 of 2016 on the
file of the learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Nampally, Criminal Courts, at Hyderabad, refusing to discharge
the petitioner.
2. Heard. Perused the record.
3. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that in the month of
February, 2012, accused Nos.1 and 2 approached the defacto
complainant and represented that accused No.1 is the Managing
Director of M/s. Sanga Mitra Arts Pvt. Ltd. and that they have
produced Telugu Movie 'Panja' which became a major hit at box
office, yielding huge profits and they can repeat such success. It is
further alleged that as accused Nos.1 and 2 induced the de facto complainant to invest in film production, he gave sum of Rs.37.00
lakhs which was invested in the movie 'Alias Janaki'. It is further
alleged that Memorandum of Understanding and agreements
were executed on 08.08.2012, 09.04.2013 and 25.07.2013 in respect
of financial transactions regarding return of amount to the de facto
complainant for any alleged violations of terms of agreement.
Accused No.1 issued (05) cheques towards discharge of liability,
bearing Nos.58227, 5822, 582289, 582308 and 582309 for a sum of
Rs.57.00 lakhs drawn on IDBI Bank, Banjara Hills Branch, which
when presented by the de facto complainant were dishonoured.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he is not a signatory to any
of the Memorandum of Understandings executed between de
facto complainant and accused No.1. Cheques were issued by
accused No.1 on behalf of Sanga Mitra Arts and even the cheques
do not contain his signature. He further argued that the name of
the petitioner/accused No.2 is referred in the complaint only on
the ground that he is husband of Neelima Tirumalasetti
representing the Sanga Mitra Arts and there is no prima facie case
made out against him and therefore he has to be discharged.
5. Learned Magistrate found that in the complaint it is
specifically mentioned that this petitioner along with accused No.1
induced respondent No.2 to invest in film making. Since it is
alleged that this petitioner, who is the husband of accused No.1
and accused No.1 conspired to deceive the de facto complainant,
the complicity of the petitioner can be ascertained during trial.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that notice
was sent to respondent No.2 and proof of service is filed. None
appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2.
7. Admittedly, the transactions were during the period
2012-2013, for the purpose of making a film. It is not in dispute
that the film was made. Further it is not in dispute that the
amounts were transferred into the account of accused No.1's firm,
which is a proprietary concern. All the cheques were signed by
accused No.1 and the Memorandum of Understanding were also
entered into accused No.1. Only a bald assertion made in the
complaint after two years of the transactions in question by filing a private complaint that this petitioner was also complicit of
inducing the de facto complainant to invest money, cannot be
made basis to continue criminal prosecution.
8. To attract an offence of cheating, a person should have been
induced by making false promise. Pursuant to the said act of
inducement, the person should have delivered property. Further
the intention of cheating should be inception of the transaction.
9. In the present case, from the year 2012, investments were
made for production and releasing of the film namely 'alias
Janaki'. It is not the case that the movie was not produced. With
the amounts which were allegedly invested by the respondent
No.2, movie was made. The said representation of making a movie
is correct even according to the de facto complainant.
10. Only for the reason of accused no.1 not honoring the
cheques which were given subsequently to the de facto
complainant towards repayment, it cannot be said that this
petitioner had fraudulent intention of cheating from the inception
of transaction. It is not the case that the amounts which are given were misused by this petitioner. The said amounts which were
given by the respondent No.2 were in fact used for the purpose of
producing the film. In the said circumstances, when the amounts
were entrusted to accused No.1 and also for the reason of there
being a bald allegation of assisting accused No.2 in the film
produced, after the amounts were paid, either criminal
misappropriation or cheating are made out, criminal prosecution
cannot be permitted against this petitioner.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the
proceedings against this petitioner in C.C.No.766 of 2016 on the
file of the learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Nampally, are hereby quashed. Consequently, the Order in
Crl.M.P.No.1000 of 2021 is hereby set aside.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J
Date: 02.01.2024 mmr
