Telangana High Court

Bejjanki Suresh vs State Of Telangana on 25 July, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

     HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

                               *****

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.1895 of 2022

Between:

Bejjanki Suresh                               ... Petitioner

                               AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High

Court, Hyderabad and another                 ...Respondents

DATE OF ORDER: 25th July, 2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI


 1    Whether Reporters of Local
      newspapers may be allowed to see         Yes/No
      the Judgment?
 2    Whether the copies of judgment
      may be marked to Law                     Yes/No
      Reporters/Journals
 3    Whether HER Lordship wish to see
      the fair copy of the Judgment?           Yes/No




                                       ___________________
                                       JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
                                 2




    * THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

             + Criminal Petition No.1895 of 2022



% Date: 25th July, 2025

Between:

Bejjanki Suresh                                   ... Petitioner

                               AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High

Court, Hyderabad and another                     ...Respondents



! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao,
                         learned Senior Counsel, representing
                               Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy

! Assistant Public Prosecutor for
  the Respondent No.1-State:         Smt.S.Madhavi

! Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri A.Gangadhar


>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1. AIR 2024 SC (CRIMINAL) 623
2. 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335
                             3




 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.1895 OF 2022

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-

accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against

him in FIR/Crime No.36 of 2022 on the file of the Station

House Officer, Vemulawada (T) Police Station, Rajanna-

Sircilla District, registered for the offence under Section 420

of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

02. Heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior

Counsel representing Sri V. Rohith, learned counsel for the

petitioner-accused No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1

as well as Sri A.Gangadhar, learned counsel for the

unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03(a). In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the

accused No.1 approached the father of respondent No.2

late Moturi Shankaraiah, in August 2018 and requested a

hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/-, undertaking to repay the same

with interest at the rate of 24% per annum until full

realization, for his personal and family needs. Respondent

No.2 who was present at that time, alleged that his father

agreed to extend the loan on the condition that the accused

shall furnish a government employee as surety and

provides collateral security. In fulfillment of these

conditions, the accused No.1 executed an assurance

agreement dated 13.08.2018 in the presence of witnesses,

and received the said amount from late Moturi

Shankaraiah, pledging the original Pattedar Passbook of

Badhineni Balaiah and furnishing the personal sureties of

petitioner-accused No.2 and the accused No.3 as

guarantors on the promissory note and agreement.

03(b). Despite repeated requests, particularly during

the COVID-19 pandemic when late Moturi Shankaraiah

was hospitalized and incurred substantial medical

expenses, the accused No.1 failed to repay the loan.

Following his demise on 09.05.2021, the respondent No.2

approached the accused Nos.1 to 3 for repayment.

However, the accused persons, acting in collusion with

each other, have deliberately evaded repayment by giving

false assurances and avoiding communication. Hence, the

respondent No.2 requested for necessary action against

the accused Nos.1 to 3.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner-accused No.2 has no involvement

whatsoever in the alleged offence. It is contended that

there is no dishonest or fraudulent intention attributable to

the petitioner-accused No.2 from the inception of the

transaction. The petitioner-accused No.2 is merely a

witness to the promissory note and did not stand as a

guarantor for the loan availed by accused No.1. It is further

submitted that there is no incriminating material on record

to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner-

accused No.2. The dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature,

and the respondent No.2 is attempting to give a criminal

colour to a civil dispute. The contents of the FIR do not

disclose the necessary and essential ingredients required

to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of

the IPC.

05. With the above submissions, learned counsel

for the petitioner-accused No.2 while praying for the

quashment of criminal proceedings relied upon a decision

of the Honourable Supreme Court in A.M.Mohan v. State

represented by SHO 1, wherein it was held at Paragraph

Nos.9(Sub-Para13), 11(Sub-Para17), 19 that:

"9.......13. 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 breakdown 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 through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] this Court observed: (SCC p. 643, para 8) "It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a 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 the 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

1 AIR 2024 SC (CRIMINAL) 623

process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

11......17. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.

19. At the cost of repetition, it has to be noted that no role of inducement at all has been attributed to the present appellant. Rather, from the perusal of the FIR and the charge- sheet, it would reveal that there was no transaction of any nature directly between the appellant and the complainant. The version, if accepted at its face value, would reveal that, at the instance of accused No. 1, the complainant transferred the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in the account of the appellant. On receipt of the said amount, the appellant immediately executed the sale deed in favour of accused No.1, who thereafter executed the GPA in favour of the complainant. After that, no role is attributed to the present appellant and whatever happened thereafter, has happened between accused No. 1, the complainant and the other accused persons. In that view of the matter, we find that the FIR or the charge-sheet, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose the ingredients to attract the provision of Section 420 of IPC qua the appellant."

06. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 as well

as learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2

contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects

to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit

case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this

juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting

trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this

Criminal Petition.

07. Having regard to the submissions made on

either side and upon perusal of the material available on

record, it is evident that there existed a loan transaction

between the father of respondent No.2 and accused No.1.

It is an admitted fact that accused No.1 executed a

promissory note and an agreement dated 13.08.2018 in

respect of the said loan. Subsequently, the father of

respondent No.2 passed away, and it is alleged that,

despite repeated demands, the loan amount has not been

repaid. The only allegation against the petitioner-accused

No.2 is that he stood as a guarantor for the said loan

transaction and, in collusion with the other accused, has

been willfully avoiding repayment of the said amount.

08. In order to attract the provisions of Section 420

of the IPC, it is a well-settled principle of law that there

must be a dishonest or fraudulent intention to deceive the

complainant right from the inception of the transaction.

Upon a meticulous examination of the promissory note and

agreement dated 13.08.2018, it is evident that the

petitioner-accused No.2 has merely subscribed his name

and affixed his signature as the 'second witness' to the said

documents. Nowhere in the said promissory note or

agreement, was the petitioner-accused No.2 shown to have

undertaken any obligation or assumed the role of a

'guarantor' in respect of the loan transaction between late

Moturi Shankaraiah i.e. the father of respondent No.2 and

the accused No.1. There is, therefore, no material to

suggest that any act of inducement or fraudulent intent can

be attributed to the petitioner-accused No.2.

09. In that view of the matter, a plain reading of the

FIR contents reveals that there was no direct transaction of

any nature between the father of the respondent No.2 and

the petitioner-accused No.2. In such circumstances, even

if the contents of the FIR are taken at their face value, they

do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to

attract the offence under Section 420 IPC insofar as the

petitioner-accused No.2 is concerned.

10. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan

Lal and others 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held

that:

"In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same

1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335

do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

11. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove,

it is evident from the material on record that the petitioner-

accused No.2 merely signed as a 'witness' and not as a

'guarantor' to the loan transaction between the father of

respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. There is no

element of cheating or fraudulent intention attributable to

the petitioner-accused No.2. The FIR is conspicuously

silent regarding any specific role, overt act, or involvement

of the petitioner-accused No.2 in the alleged offence. The

principal allegations pertain solely to the accused No.1.

Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face

value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie