Telangana High Court
Mohd. Akbar Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana on 17 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12489 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused
Nos.1 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in
Crime No.311 of 2025 of Film Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad,
registered for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(2) and
351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short, 'BNS').
2. Heard Sri Manu, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri Nanda Kishore
Amarchand Yadav , learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are not liable to pay any amount to respondent No.2-
de facto complainant, as alleged and that they are not at all
related to the alleged transaction with the de facto complainant.
He further submitted that the de facto complainant has already
initiated proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(for short, 'NI Act') vide S.T.C.NI.No.4271 of 2024 on the file of
learned XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and during
2 ETD,J
pendency of the said proceedings, invoking parallel proceedings
under BNS is not at all maintainable and hence, prayed to quash
the proceedings in the present crime against the petitioners
herein.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the
Honourable Apex Court has referred the issue to the larger Bench
and the issue is still pending. He further submitted that petitioner
Nos.2 to 5 are family members of petitioner No.1 and that there is
partnership deed executed between the wife of petitioner No.1
and the de facto complainant herein. He further submitted that as
per the Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioners are
obliged to pay certain amount to the de facto complainant and
that they paid an amount of Rs.1,16,65,250/- and are further due
to pay an amount of Rs.75,01,307/-, for which they have issued
two cheques, but they were not hounoured. Thus, the petitioners
have intentionally cheated and caused loss to the de facto
complainant. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal
Petition.
5. Perused the record.
3 ETD,J
6. In the case of Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla
Venkateswara Rao and another 1, the Hounourable Apex Court
has held that if the offences are different and the facts are the
same, the prosecution under Section 420 of I.P.C. is barred by
virtue of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. In the case of G. Sagar Suri and
another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2, also the offence
under Section 138 of NI Act as well as offences under Sections
406 and 420 of I.P.C. were allegedly committed by the accused
therein, and the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the
High Court was dismissed and on filing Special Leave Petition
before the Honourable Apex Court, it was allowed and the
Honourable Apex Court directed that prosecution under Sections
420 and 406 of I.P.C. is not tenable and quashed the same.
7. The Honourable Apex Court in Sangeetaben
Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and another 3, has held
that the requirement to prove an offence under the NI Act and an
offence under the I.P.C. is different, and it was observed that
there may be some overlapping of facts but the ingredients of the
(2011) 2 SCC 703
(2000) 2 SCC 636
(2012) 7 SCC 621
4 ETD,J
offences are entirely different, therefore, the subsequent cases
are not barred by any statutory provisions.
8. Thus, a different view has been taken from the view taken
in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao's case (supra 1) and
G. Sagar Suri's case (supra 2) rendered by the Bench of the
same strength.
9. In J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan and others 4, also a
similar question cropped up before the Honourable Apex Court
and the Honourable Apex Court has discussed about the
judgment rendered in the above cited decisions. Since, the view
taken in the said cases are conflicting to each other, the Bench
has requested the Registry to place the file before the Honourable
the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger Bench to settle the
law.
10. Though the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
contended that the issue has been referred to the larger Bench,
the decision in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao's case (supra 1) is not
overruled as on date. Hence, applying the said decision, the
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 669
5 ETD,J
proceedings in the present crime are liable to be quashed against
the petitioners herein.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in Crime No.311 of 2025 of Film Nagar Police
Station, Hyderabad, are quashed against the petitioners herein.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 17.11.2025.
MD
