Telangana High Court
T. Siddhartha Rao vs State Of Telangana on 5 February, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12175 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed questioning the orders of the
learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal
Revision Petition No.320 of 2014 dated 26.09.2018.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the
defacto complainant. He is the Managing Director of Mobilelink
Tele Solutions Private Limited. The company provides services to
Indian and foreign clients for their operations in India and
abroad. There was a tie up with MN/s.MFK LLC, Texas, USA for
providing backend support.
3. The respondents 2 to 32 were shown as accused and the
petitioner filed complaint stating that all of them have entered
into a criminal conspiracy and swindled the amount from the
company of the petitioner by fabricating and forging invoices and
thereby resulting in wrongful loss of Rs.2,60,22,740/-. On the
basis of the complaint filed, Crime No.135 of 2012 was registered.
W.P.No.30369 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner seeking
expeditious investigation. The police filed final report stating that
the dispute was civil in nature.
4. A protest petition was filed in Crl.M.P.No.2118 of 2014
before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Secunderabad. Learned Magistrate dismissed the petition mainly
on the ground that Smt.T.Sulochana Rao, who is the real mother
of the defacto complainant/petitioner herein and 2nd
respondent/A1 Mrs.Lavanya Lewis, stated that the petitioner did
not invest any amount in the company.
5. The learned Magistrate found that the transactions were
purely civil in nature and no offences of criminal
misappropriation, cheating or theft were made out, and the
Magistrate accepted the final report of the police. Aggrieved by
the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner preferred
Criminal Revision Petition No.320 of 2014. Learned Sessions
Judge, having heard the parties, held that on the basis of the
statement made by T.Sulochana Rao, who is the mother of the
defacto complainant, it is apparent that the transactions are
purely civil in nature and orders passed by the learned
Magistrate requires no interference.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that both the Courts below did not apply their mind to the facts
of the case. The Court had to look into the complaint and once
the allegations made in the complaint make out an offence,
charges had to be framed without considering any other aspects
in the case. The other circumstances can only be considered
during trial. He further submitted that the case of the petitioner
was prejudiced and both the Courts below showed bias. The
petitioner relied on nearly 50 judgments, which were extracted in
the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge. On the basis
of the very same judgments, learned counsel submits that the
statement of the mother of the petitioner ought not to have been
considered by the Court below and the learned Magistrate has
committed an error in recording the statement of the mother of
the petitioner and dismissing the protest petition filed by the
petitioner.
7. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are not extracted since all the judgments form part of
the impugned order.
8. Petitioner and A1 are the children of Smt.T.Sulochana Rao.
Companies were floated by A1 and the petitioner herein, who are
the brother and sister, respectively. The remaining accused are
all employees working under A1 and the defacto complainant.
The crux of the allegation in the present complaint is that though
several invoices were submitted to A1 company, for a total
amount of Rs.3,09,98,642/- for the services rendered, only
Rs.74,81,038/- was paid and there was a balance amount of
Rs.2,35,17,604/-.
9. The transactions in between them as narrated in complaint
were during the normal course of business.
10. The business in between the companies was done with the
consent of one another and it cannot be said that there was any
false representation or inducement by A1, from the averments in
complaint. No such allegation is also made in the complaint. Only
for the reason of there being an outstanding, it cannot be said
that, not paying the outstanding amount would attract offences
of either cheating or criminal misappropriation.
11. Further, allegation of committing theft of furniture, laptops,
desk tops is made against the employees. There is no proof that
the employees had committed theft of the said furniture or
laptops as evident from the investigation done by the police and
also the statement of the mother of the petitioner.
12. The argument of the learned counsel that examination of
the mother of petitioner/defacto complainant is improper and the
Magistrate Court or the police during investigation should not
have examined her, unless complainant cites her as a witness, is
wholly incorrect.
13. Under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, a Magistrate taking cognizance
of a complaint shall examine complainant and the witnesses
present, if any. The examination by the Magistrate cannot be
confined to the witnesses produced by the complainant only. Any
witness whose evidence is necessary to decide whether
cognizance can be taken, can be examined by the Magistrate
during the course of enquiry under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Similar
is the case during investigation. The police need not confine the
investigation only to examine the witnesses cited by the
complainant. Whatever is required to probe into a criminal
complaint has to be done by the investigating officer. There
cannot be any selective examination of witnesses as argued by
the counsel, either during investigation or during the procedure
of taking cognizance under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. For the sake of
convenience, Section 200 of Cr.P.C is extracted hereunder:
"200. Examination of complainant.
A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall
examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any,
and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and
shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the
Magistrate:
Provided that when the complaint is made in writing, the
Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses -
(a)if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of
his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or
(b)if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to
another Magistrate under section 192:
Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to
another Magistrate under section 192 after examining the complainant
and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them."
14. The complaint is result of disputes in between two
companies, which transactions are purely civil in nature. The
petitioner apparently filed criminal complaint against the
respondent/accused only to coerce them to settle disputes in the
company which falls within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court.
15. There are no grounds to interfere with the result of
investigation and the subsequent refusal by the Magistrate to
take cognizance. Further, the learned Sessions Court's refusal to
entertain the Revision Petition also cannot be disturbed.
16. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently,
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 05.02.2025
kvs
