T. Siddhartha Rao vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 1775 Tel

Telangana High Court

T. Siddhartha Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 5 February, 2025

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.12216 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed questioning the orders of the

learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal

Revision Petition No.330 of 2014 dated 26.09.2018.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the

defacto complainant. He is the Director of M/s.Panam 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 M/s.PANAM TELECOMMUNICATIONS 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.2,22,22,195/-. On the basis of the

complaint filed, Crime No.136 of 2012 was registered.

W.P.No.30367 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.2119 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.330 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

statements 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.2,00,69,585/- for the services rendered, only Rs.28,65,938/-

was paid and there was a balance amount of Rs.2,22,22,195/-.

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