Telangana High Court
M/S Gayi Adi Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Telangana on 25 April, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.12618 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government
Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and with the
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition
is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.
2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the
admission stage and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view
that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 6 is not necessary for
adjudication of the present Writ Petition.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is
that though it had approached the respondents-authorities and submitted
a complaint dt.23.09.2024 setting out the details as to how the unofficial
respondents herein have cheated the petitioner and requested the said
authorities to conduct investigation by registering First Information
Report, the respondents instead of conducting investigation have issued
impugned proceedings, dt.07.10.2024, advising the petitioner to approach
NCLT to seek redressal of its grievance by stating that no specific
provision exists under BNS/IPC for the alleged offences, which action of
the respondents-authorities it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary and
contrary to law.
4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the contents of the
complaint made by the petitioner on 23.09.2024 would reveal that the
same relates to commercial transaction involving the share purchase
between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents herein and since the
said dispute cannot be gone into by the respondents-authorities, the
respondents have issued the said communication advising the petitioner to
avail remedies by approaching NCLT.
5. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
6. Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the contents
of complaint clearly discloses commission of cognizable offence, a perusal
of the contents of the complaint would show that the same relates to
transfer of shares of the petitioner company.
7. This Court in the case of R am ky I nfrastructure Lim ited v/ s.
State of Telangana and others 1 , on a similar challenge being made,
had held that in relation to commercial transaction involving share
purchase agreement, the action of respondent police in not registering FIR
cannot be found fault with.
W.P.No.24495 of 2019 dt.21.04.2020
8. Further, in a recent judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court in R ikhab
Biranir v/ s. The State of Uttar P radesh 2 , had elucidated the
difference between 'cheating' and 'breach of contract'.
9. Since, the contents of the complaint lodged by the petitioner with
the respondents-authorities indicates breach/violation of the terms of the
agreement, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid communication
issued by the 3rd respondent authority cannot be held to be either illegal
or dereliction in discharge of police duties.
10. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the view that the present
Writ Petition as filed is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. No
order as to costs.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall
stand closed.
__________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:25.04.2025
Note:
Furnish CC in two days.
(B/o) GJ
SLP (Crl.) No.8592 of 2024 dt.16.04.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.12618 of 2025
25.04.2025
GJ
