Telangana High Court
Namana Ravi Kumar, vs The State Of Telangana on 18 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13656 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.6
seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.24 of
2024 of EOW Cyberabad Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for
the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of I.P.C. and Section 5 of
the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments
Act (for short, 'TSPDFEA').
2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
herein is accused No.6 and that he is not an 'agent' as alleged by
the de facto complainant, but he is an 'investor' and that he is the
whistle-blower against the offences committed by accused No.1
herein. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot be arrayed
as an accused and that the allegations levelled against the
petitioner are false. He further submitted that the ingredients under
Sections 420 and 406 of I.P.C. do not attract against the petitioner
2 ETD,J
herein. He further submitted that Section 5 of TSPDFEA also does
not attract at all, as the petitioner is neither a Company nor an
Agent. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the
present crime against the petitioner herein.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
prosecution could collect ample material to show that the petitioner
herein worked as an agent of M/s. Profitgenix Financial Services
Private Limited, collected deposits from the innocent customers and
later on did not pay them any returns or their own amounts. Hence,
the allegations point out that the petitioner lured the depositors and
collected amounts from them. He further submitted that charge
sheet is already filed and it is under consideration by the trial Court
for taking cognizance. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal
Petition.
5. Perused the record.
6. The contents of the complaint point out that the petitioner
herein, who is arrayed as accused No.6, is an agent alleged to have
worked under M/s. Profitgenix Financial Services Private Limited.
The instructions submitted by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor disclose the involvement of the petitioner herein. It is
3 ETD,J
alleged that the petitioner played a significant role in the operation of
the said Company, which was involved in fraudulent activities under
the guise of offering high interest investments. It is alleged that the
petitioner has induced the customers to make investments in the
said Company. It is further made out during the course of
investigation that the petitioner herein worked as an agent on
commission basis and made the investors invest large sums around
Rs.50,00,000/- to Rs.70,00,000/- in the company. Thus, the
allegations prima facie point out the offences alleged against the
petitioner herein. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that
the petitioner is not an agent and that he is an investor. But, the
recitals of the complaint disclose that he is not an investor and that
he worked as an agent for the said Company. As per the
instructions submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
charge sheet is filed and cognizance is awaited from the concerned
Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Rajendra Bihari Lal and
another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 1 and contended that
an F.I.R. can be quashed even after filing of the charge sheet. In
2025 INSC 1249 (W.P.(CRl.).No.123 of 2023, dated 17.10.2025)
4 ETD,J
the above cited decision, the Honourable Apex Court has discussed
its earlier decision in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of
Delhi) 2, wherein it is held as:
"14. First, we would like to deal with the submission
of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once
the charge-sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is
untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission,
keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj
A. v. State of Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat,
(2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]. In Joseph
Salvaraj A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7
SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding
the question whether the High Court could entertain the
Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR, when the charge-
sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the
Section 482 petition, observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16)
"16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various
sections under which the appellant is being charged and is
to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made
out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the
charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge
[Joseph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine
Guj 365] could have still examined whether the offences
alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima
facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge-sheet,
documents, etc. or not."
(2019) 11 SCC 706
5 ETD,J
8. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon
a decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Iqbal @ Bala and
others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 3, wherein it was held
that when charge sheet is filed and it is under consideration by the
Court concerned for taking cognizance, at that stage also, the
proceedings cannot be quashed, but the accused has a recourse to
file a discharge petition before the trial Court. In the present case,
charge sheet is filed and the cognizance order is awaited. The
allegations are very serious in nature, wherein several victims are
alleged to have been deceived involving lakhs of rupees. Therefore,
in view of the above held discussion and in the light of Iqbal @
Bala's case (supra 3), this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings in the present crime against the petitioner herein.
Thus, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merit.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 18.11.2025.
MD
(2023) 8 SCC 734
