Telangana High Court

Bijju Madhavan vs State Of Telangana, on 26 September, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

     CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2131 and 2426 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

Since both the Criminal Petitions are challenging the

proceedings in C.C.No.34 of 2022, they are analogously heard

together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. Criminal Petition No.2131 of 2024: This Criminal

Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 to quash the

proceedings against her in C.C.No.34 of 2022 pending on the file

of the District Judge Court, Hanamkonda, for the offences

punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 read with 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 3, 5 of Telangana Protection

of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 and Section

66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000-2008.

3. Criminal Petition No.2426 of 2024: This Criminal

Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 to quash the

proceedings against him in C.C.No.34 of 2022 pending on the file

of the District Judge Court, Hanamkonda, for the offences

punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 read with 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 3, 5 of Telangana Protection

of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 and Section

66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000-2008.

SKS,J CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2131 and 2426 of 2024

4. For the purpose of disposal of both the Criminal

Petitions, the facts in C.C.No.34 of 2022 are taken into

consideration.

5. Accused No.1, who is the roommate of respondent No.2,

suggested respondent No.2 to invest in share market and

introduced accused Nos.2 to 4, who are directors and ex director

of PRV Consultancy Services Limited. Believing the deceitful

words of the accused, respondent No.2 invested nearly

Rs.1,17,60,000/- under the client Code: AIRRS01 and pan

No.BVUPB1804R with the firm letter head bearing Trade Name

as Acumen Capital Market (India) Limited. Thereafter, accused

Nos.2 and 3 closed the said PRV Consultancy Services Private

Limited. Hence, respondent No.2 filed a complaint vide Crime

No.10 of 2021 before the Subedari Police and after completion of

investigation, charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.34 of 2022 before

the District Judge Court, Hanamkonda.

6. Heard Smt Anupriya Sethi, learned counsel for the

accused Nos.2 and 3 and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

7. Learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3 submitted that

though the disputes between the parties are civil in nature,

respondent No.2 filed criminal case by creating concocted story

SKS,J CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2131 and 2426 of 2024

only to misuse the process of law. He further submitted that the

allegations levelled against accused Nos.2 and 3 are vague in

nature and none of offences alleged against accused Nos.2 and 3

constitute offences much or less than the alleged offences.

Hence, he prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by

quashing the proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 3.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of learned

counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3 stating that there are serious

allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3 and the merits or

otherwise of the same has to be gone into by the trial Court.

Hence, he prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

9. In view of the rival submissions made by both the

parties, this Court has perused the material available on record.

The main allegation levelled against accused Nos.2 and 3 that

they cheated respondent No.2 in the name of PRV Consultancy

Services Private Limitedby manipulating him to invest in share

market and collected nearly Rs.1,17,60,000/- from him.

Thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 3 closed the PRV Consultancy

Services Private Limited. It is pertinent to note that to quash the

proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see

SKS,J CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2131 and 2426 of 2024

whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that it

constitute the offences as alleged by the Police.

10. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India

Ltd. 1, wherein in paragraph No.10 it is held as follows:

"10. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri vs. State of UP [2000 (2) SCC 636], this Court observed :

"It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

2006 (6) SCC 736

SKS,J CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2131 and 2426 of 2024

While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law...."

11. In the case on hand, the allegations are that accused

Nos.2 and 3 cheated respondent No.2 by collecting huge

amounts from him to invest in share markets in the name of

PRV Consultancy Services Private Limited and closed the said

company without giving returns to him. Although it is stated by

accused Nos.2 and 3 that respondent No.2 has not adduced any

evidence to prove that from where he got the huge amount to

invest in the share market and that the disputes arose between

the parties are with regard to the financial transactions, which

are civil in nature, this Court cannot conduct mini trial while

dealing with the petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as

such, the allegations requires trial. In view of the same and the