Telangana High Court
Karinki Krishna Kanth vs State Of Telangana And Another on 18 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.5672 OF 2022
% Dated 18.11.2025
# Karinki Krishna Kanth S/o.K. Nageshwara Rao
Aged: about 40 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.Flat No.312, Teja Block,
My Home Navadeep Apartments,
Madhapur, Hyderabad.
....Petitioner4
VERSUS
$ State of Telangana,
Represented by its Public Prosecutor
High Court, Telangana and another
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr.G. Veera Babu
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. G. Vasantha Rayudu (R.2)
Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy
Assistant Public Prosecutor (R.1)
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339
2. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 998
3. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1643
4. (2000) 2 SCC 636
5. (2012) 7 SCC 621
6. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1010
7. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1002
8. (2019) 14 SCC 350
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5672 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the
petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.11868 of 2021 on the file of the XII Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offence
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,
'the IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case:
On 17.04.2021 at about 15:00 hours, Respondent No. 2
filed a complaint, wherein he stated that his firm undertakes
government civil contract works and that, in the course of
business, the Directors of M/s Dhruthi Infra Projects Limited,
including the petitioner along with accused Nos.2 and 3, who
were directors of the firm and responsible for the in day-to-day
affairs, approached him between May 2015 and April 2017 and
obtained a hand loan of Rs. 14,20,00,000/-. They agreed to
repay Rs. 12,00,00,000/- with 24% interest per annum and
clear the remaining Rs. 2,20,00,000/- within a short period.
However, they failed to honour these commitments for several
years. At that stage, respondent No.2 filed C.C.Nos.235 of 2018
and 304 of 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner and the other
accused requested withdrawal of those cases and agreed to pay
the amounts and executed (Memorandum of Understanding)
MoU on 13.02.2020 and they given D.D. for Rs.1,00,00,000/-
and they issued post-dated cheques for Rs.11,00,00,000/-.
When the said cheques were presented, the same were returned
with an endorsement "account blocked situation covered in
2125" and the petitioner did not respond to the statutory notice
issued by him and he further stated that the petitioner had
dishonestly issued cheques and misused the amount of
Rs.8,35,90,000/-. He also stated that on each and every stage,
there is dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner and
other accused. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.
73/2021 was registered on 17.04.2021 under Section 420 read
with Section 34 IPC, and the Investigating Officer after
conducting investigation filed final report and the learned XII
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, has
taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner and
other accused in C.C.No.11868 of 2021. Hence, the petitioner
filed this criminal petition.
3. Heard Mr. G. Veera Babu, learned for the petitioner,
Mr. G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for respondent No.2,
and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not
committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in the
present case. The allegations made in the complaint and the
final report are purely civil in nature as it is for recovery of the
amount and the ingredients for the offence under Section 420 of
the IPC do not attract.
4.2. He further submitted that with respect to the very same
allegations, respondent No.2 had already filed complaints,
namely STC.NI.Nos. 284, 285, 290 and 295 of 2021, which are
pending on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act').
Respondent No.2 ought to have include the offence under
Section 420 of the IPC, while filing the cases under Section 138
of the NI Act, on the other hand, he filed the present complaint
for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC, which amounts to
double jeopardy, and the same is not permissible under law as
per the provisions of Section 300 of the Cr.P.C.
4.3. He further submitted that there are no specific allegations
against the petitioner to attract the ingredients under Section
420 of the IPC, especially there is no dishonest intention on the
part of the petitioner from the date of inception. In the absence
of the specific allegation to attract the offence under Section 420
of the IPC, the continuation of the proceedings is a clear abuse
of the process of law.
4.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the
judgments:
1. A.M. Mohan v. State Represented by SHO and
another 1;
2. Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of Gujarat and
another 2;
3. M/s. Shikhar Chemicals v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh & another 3;
4. G. Sagar Suri and another v. State of U.P. and
others 4;
5. Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of
Gujarat and another 5;
6. J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan & Ors 6;
7. Sripati Singh (Since Deceased) Through His
Son Gaurav Singh v. State of Jharkhand and
another 7; and
8. Order in Criminal Petition No.4174 of 2024;
2024 SCC OnLine SC 339
2025 SCC OnLine SC 998
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1643
(2000) 2 SCC 636
(2012) 7 SCC 621
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1010
2021 SCC OnLine SC 1002
5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:
5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner
and other directors of M/s.Dhruthi Infra Projects Limited
obtained loan on behalf of their company from respondent No.2
to a tune of Rs.14,20,00,000/- between the period from May,
2015, to April, 2017, and they have agreed to pay
Rs.12,00,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum and agreed
to repay the balance amount of Rs.2,20,00,000/- within short
period on a mutual understanding. Due to delay in repayment
for years together, respondent No.2 filed C.C.No.235 of 2018 on
the file of the Special Magistrate Court, Hyderabad, Nampally,
and also filed another C.C.No.304 of 2019 on the file of the XXIII
Special Magistrate Court, Hyderabad. When the said cases were
pending, the petitioner and other directors have approached
respondent No.2 for amicable settlement outside the Court and
promised to pay part debt of Rs.11,00,00,000/- by way of
monthly installments and issued post-dated cheques.
Accordingly, the petitioner and other accused have executed
entered MoU on 13.02.2020 and 14.02.2020 with respondent
No.2. At the time of execution of MoU, the petitioner and others
have given demand draft for an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-
dated 06.02.2020 as a part payment of due amount and also
issued eleven (11) post-dated cheques for an amount of
Rs.11,00,00,000/-. Believing their words, respondent No.2 had
withdrawn the above said three cases and subsequently, he
presented the cheques in his bank and the said cheques were
returned with an endorsement 'account blocked'.
5.2. He further submitted that there is a dishonest intention on
the part of the petitioner and other accused from the date of
inception and executed MoU, issued post-dated cheques and
blocked the account intentionally to avoid the payment. Hence,
the ingredients for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC are
attracted against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer, after
recording the statements of the witnesses, filed a final report,
wherein it is specifically mentioned about the role of the
petitioner, which attracts the ingredients of the offence under
Sections 420 of the IPC.
5.3. He also submitted that the allegations made in 138 N.I.
Acts cases and allegations made in present case are totally
different and distinct. In Section 138 N.I. Acts, once issuance of
the cheque for discharging legally enforceable debt or liability is
not in dispute, the burden of proof lies upon the accused under
Section 139 of the NI Act, whereas for the penal offences, the
burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the case against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the pendency of the
proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act and the
proceedings in the present C.C. are totally different and distinct
and the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the
criminal proceedings.
5.4. He further submitted that even the judgment which is
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in G.Sagar
Suri supra was referred to the Full Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the issue is pending.
Reply submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply,
submitted that mere pendency of the issue before the Full
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Sagar Suri supra, is
not a ground to keep the matter pending and even in the
absence of G. Sagar Suri judgment supra, the proceedings in
C.C.No.11868 of 2021 is liable to be quashed on the ground
that as allegations levelled against the petitioner are purely civil
in nature i.e., for recovery of the amount.
Analysis
7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and perused the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 initially filed two
complaints against the petitioner and others vide C.C.No.235 of
2018 on the file of the I Special Magistrate Court, Hyderabad,
and C.C.No.304 of 2019 on the file of the XXIII Special
Magistrate Court, Hyderabad, for the offence under Section 138
of the N.I. Act. The specific case of respondent No.2 is that
when the said cases are pending, the petitioner and other
accused have approached respondent No.2 and requested to
withdraw pending cases and they are ready and willing to pay
the amounts. Accordingly, they entered MoU with respondent
No.2 on 13.02.2020 and 14.02.2020. The specific case of
respondent No.2 is that while entering into the said MoU, the
petitioner and others have handed over D.D.No.296077 dated
06.02.2020 for an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as part payment
of dues, and they issued eleven (11) post-dated cheques for an
amount of Rs.11,00,00,000/- and when the said cheques were
presented by respondent No.2 in his bank, the same were
returned with an endorsement 'account blocked situation
covered in 2125'.
8. The record further reveals that respondent No.2's firm
namely M/s.BNR Constructions filed STC.N.I.Nos.284, 285 and
290 of 2021 against the petitioner and others under Sections
138 and 141 of the N.I. Act read with Section 190 and 200 of
the Cr.P.C. Respondent No.2 has filed the present complaint,
which is registered as Crime No.73 of 2021 on 17.04.2021 for
the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. In the complaint, he
specifically stated that the petitioner and other accused have
issued the cheques for discharge legally enforcement debt and
intentionally blocked the bank account, played fraud, cheated
him with their acts and deeds, and mis-used money of
Rs.8,35,90,000/-. The Investigating Officer, after recording the
statements of LWs.1 to 8 under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., filed
the final report, wherein they specifically mentioned the role of
the petitioner.
9. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the nature of the allegations made in the
complaint and the final report is civil in nature and respondent
No.2 lodged the complaint implicating the petitioner as accused
to settle the monetary disputes is not tenable under law on the
ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner
about his dishonest intention and there is a criminal intent on
his part to cheat respondent No.2 from inception and executed
MoU and blocked the account.
10. In A.M. Mohan supra, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
found that the FIR and charge-sheet did not disclose any
dishonest or fraudulent inducement at the inception, and that
the allegation was essentially contractual, thereby not attracting
Sections 415 or 420 IPC. In Ashok Kumar Jain supra, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court cannot weigh
the evidence or conduct a mini-trial, and that quashing is an
exception. In M/s Shikhar Chemicals supra, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court deprecated the reasoning that criminal
proceedings should continue merely because civil remedies may
be time-consuming, and held that criminal law cannot be
converted into a mechanism for recovery in matters that are
purely civil in character.
11. On a careful consideration of the allegations and the
sequence of the events, it is evident that the petitioners acted
with fraudulent intent from the very inception, first by failing to
honour the initial repayment commitments, and thereafter by
inducing the complainant to withdraw the earlier NI Act
proceedings by executing an MoU and issuing post-dated
cheques, all of which were dishonoured with the endorsement
"account blocked," demonstrating complete absence of bona
fides, which prima facie reveal that there is a dishonest
intention and act of cheating, thereby satisfying the essential
ingredients of Sections 415 and 420 IPC. The above said
judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
may not come to the aid of the petitioner.
12. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that respondent No.2's firm has already
initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act and when
the said case is pending, respondent No.2 cannot file the
present complaint with the very same allegations, in view of
Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. and it would amount to an abuse of
the process of law is concerned, the petitioner has neither been
convicted nor acquitted in any similar offence, admittedly which
are pending in the competent Courts. Hence, the provisions of
Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the present case.
13. Similarly, the other contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that based on very same allegations,
respondent No.2's firm has already initiated the proceedings
under Section 138 of the NI Act and respondent No.2 ought to
have included the offence under Section 420 of the IPC in the
very same proceedings, is also tenable under law, because the
allegations made in the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI
Act and the allegations made in the present complaint for the
offence under Section 420 of the IPC are different and distinct.
Merely not including the offence under Section 420 of the IPC in
138 NI Act proceedings, the petitioner is not entitled to seek
quashing of the proceedings.
14. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 had already filed
cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the
same are pending before the trial Court, continuation of the
present proceedings for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC
is an abuse of the process of law by relying upon the principles
of G. Sagar Suri, Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel, J.
Vedhasingh, Sripati Singh and the order in Criminal Petition
No.4174 of 2024 supra are concerned, in J. Vedhasingh supra,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the issue to a large Bench
and the same is pending before the Ho'ble Apex Court. In view
of the same, this Court is not go into deal with the above said
aspect.
15. It is already stated supra that in the complaint, the
statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. and charge sheet and there are specific allegatiosn
against the petitioner that there is dishonest intention from
inception and failed to honour their initial repayment
obligations but further induced the complainant to withdraw the
earlier NI Act proceedings by executing an MoU and issuing
eleven post-dated cheques, all of which were dishonoured with
the endorsement "account blocked," thereby manifesting
fraudulent intention from the inception.
16. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sau. Kamala
Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 8, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised in exceptional cases sparingly,
with caution, only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the
ends of justice; and it cannot be invoked to weigh evidence or
stifle a genuine prosecution, but may be applied where the
allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, do not disclose
(2019) 14 SCC 350
the basic ingredients of any offence. The case on hand is not
the rarest of rare cases to exercise powers of this Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the issues/grounds raised by the
petitioner are triable issues and this court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings.
17. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However,
taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, the presence of the petitioner in C.C.No.11868 of
2021 is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically
required subject to the condition that the petitioner shall
represent through his counsel on each and every date of
hearing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioner on the
specific date so fixed by the trial Court for his appearance, the
trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance
with law. It is made clear that any of the observations made in
this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this
case.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date:18.11.2025
L.R. copy to be marked
mar
