Telangana High Court
Podicheti Ramulu vs The State Of Telangana on 5 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4266 OF 2019
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-9 and
A-13 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.131 of 2015, on the
file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
The petitioners herein are alleged to have committed the
offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 406, 347,
365, 368 & 100 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.
3. Briefly, the case of the respondents/defacto-
complainants is that they have been traders of chilly business
at Guntur since 10 years with turnover of Rs.25 crores. While
so, they suffered losses in business. At that point of time,
accused Nos.1 to 3 came into contact with the defacto
complainants and assured them that they would clear their
issues with creditors. Accordingly, they induced defacto
complainants to come to Secunderabad along with family and
with available cash, gold etc. Believing them, the
complainants went to Secunderabad on 25.02.2013 along with
available cash of Rs.1,70,00,000/-, gold ornaments worth of
Rs.1,00,00,000/-, silver ornaments and other precious stones,
articles, etc. A-1 to A-3 took them to an unknown location
and relieved them of the cash, gold etc, under the guise of
keeping them secure. Later, A-1 to A-3 kept shifting defacto
complainants from one place to another. During March 2013,
A-1 to A-3 filed insolvency petition vide IPSR.No.3672 of 2013.
Suspecting the intention of A-1 to A-3, when defacto
complainants demanded them for return of their money, gold
and silver ornaments, etc, they threatened them of danger
from creditors and kept them in a farm house at Shadnagar.
Later, defacto complainants without knowledge of A-1 to A-3,
escaped from the said place. A-2 gave hand loans to the tune
of Rs.80 lakhs to the millers at Miryalaguda through his father
A-9. A-1 started constructing a house at L.B.Nagar with ill-
gotten money.
4. Thereafter, A-10, A-11 along with defacto complainants
went to Guntur and entered into an MOU on 16.07.2013 with
chilli merchants association represented by A-4 stating that
they will clear the loans by disposing remaining properties.
On 20.07.2013, defacto complainants gave special GPA in
favour of A-5 in respect of 5 properties belonging to them.
A-6 and A-7 are the witnesses to the said document.
5. The allegation against the petitioners/A-9 and A-13
herein is that they gave hand loans from ill gotten money
received from A-2, on behalf of A-2.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that even according to the complainants, initially
Crime No.79 of 2013 was filed before Market Police Station on
the basis of compliant given by the complainants. The said
crime was subject matter of Crl.P.No.5461 of 2013 and
Crl.P.No.6033 of 2013. The respondents/complainants and
the A-1 to A-3 approached this Court and filed compromise
application. On the basis of compromise, this Court by order
dated 12.03.2013 quashed the proceedings against A-1 to A-3.
7. Again 7 months after the proceedings were quashed, the
present complaint was filed by the respondents with CCS, DD,
Hyderabad on 10.10.2014, which was registered as Crime
No.257 of 2014.
8. In the charge sheet filed, it is alleged that the defacto
complainants were forced to compromise before the High
Court and they were not inclined to do so. For the said
reason, the compromise entered into in Cr.No.79 of 2013
which was quashed has no bearing and accordingly, Police
concluded investigation and filed charge sheet.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar
Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Chattigarh & Anr 1, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where there
was an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and quashed
the proceedings on merits.
10. It is admitted fact that the complainants approached this
Court and filed affidavit, pursuant to which proceedings were
quashed in Cr.No.79 of 2013. If at all there was any grievance
that they were forced to compromise the case, they ought to
have approached this Court for setting aside the orders passed
in Crl.P.Nos.5461 & 6033 of 2013, on the grounds of force, or
coercion or undue influence or fraud. Neither the
complainants have taken steps to set aside the orders passed
in the above criminal petitions nor have they appealed before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court questioning the orders passed by
this Court.
11. Having approached this Court and giving consent for
quashing the proceedings, the complainants cannot again file
a separate complaint on the very same allegations. The said
procedure adopted by the complainants cannot be accepted
and consequent investigation by the Police on the ground that
they were defrauded/forced to compromise before this Court
cannot be made a ground to pursue investigation. Though a
second complaint is not barred, on the same set of facts under
peculiar circumstances of the given case, however, no steps
were taken to either review the order of quashing the initial
crime or questioning before the Supreme Court. The
complainants have chosen a different police station in
Hyderabad itself to lodge the second complaint.
12. Further, on facts also it is admitted that petitioners
herein were given money by A-2 to be passed on as hand loan
to other persons. Petitioners were arrayed on the basis of the
confession of A-2. Even according to the complainants,
petitioners are known to them and complaint was filed only
against A-1 to A-3. The said allegation of petitioners taking
money from A-2 at A-2's instance and giving loans will not
attract any of the offences alleged under Sections 120(B), 420,
406, 347, 365, 368 & 109 of IPC. The petitioners have neither
abetted nor entered into a conspiracy with A-1 to A-3 to cheat
the complainants in the present facts.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing
the proceedings in C.C.No.131 of 2015 against the petitioners
herein. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 05.02.2025
dv
