The court emphasized that failure to produce an arrested individual before a Magistrate within 24 hours constitutes a violation of constitutional rights, rendering the remand order invalid.

ORDER :

(E.V. Venugopal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. S.Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for State/respondent.

2. Challenge in this criminal revision case, filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C, is to the remand order dated 18.07.2024 passed against the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.19 of 2024 of PS, EOW, Cyberabad on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District at LB Nagar.

3. Crime in FIR No.19 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 409 IPC was registered against the petitioner and three others by the PS, EOW, Cyberabad basing on the complaint lodged by one Kartheek Motamarri, the de- facto complainant, alleging that he was induced and misrepresented by Shilpa (A4), stated to be the Marketing Partner of M/s.GSR Infra Group, making him to believe that they were constructing villas in the land admeasuring Ac.16.00 by obtaining HMDA approval and offered a villa admeasuring 200 Sq.Yards and 2500 SFT in Sy.No.298, Kollur Village, RC Puram Mandal for lesser price as a pre-launch offer and obtained Rs.1.17 Crores through cheques and online transactions to GSR Infra Private Ltd., (A1) bank account bearing A/c.No.410805500101 from September, 2023 to October, 2023 and issued cash receipts to that effect, signed by Guntapalli Srinivas Rao (A2), Managing Director of M/s.GSR Infra Luxurious Villas LLP.

3(a). Further, A2, on behalf of A1, executed agreement of sale dated 21.10.2023 stating that he is acquiring land in Sy.Nos. 298, 347 and 351 of Kollur Village, RC Puram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District. Further, A2 promised the de-facto complainant to register land admeasuring 350 Sq.Yards instead of 200 Sq.Yards as security assurance within a week in his favour and after receiving approvals from concerned departments the project will be completed within three years and executed an un-registered agreement of sale on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper vide No.BA274180 on 21.10.2003. However, in-spite of repeated persuasions A2 postponed registration of the land, as agreed, in favour of the de-facto complainant. Accordingly, on suspicion, when the de-facto complainant visited the office of A2, he, while giving two typed documents as assurance, stated that on or before 25.01.2024 he would register the document or otherwise he would repay the amount with 24% interest by 31.03.2024.

3(b). Subsequently, the de-facto complainant came to know that there were some issues between the land lords and the accused and when he enquired A2 regarding the said issues, he admitted stating that the landlords are demanding more amounts. On that occasion, the de-facto complainant observed some other individuals including Sudheer Kolipakula and Kishore Kasam asking security for the amounts paid by them. Then A2 stated that he had purchased development rights of the land admeasuring Ac.10.13 Gts., in Sy.No.352, Kollur Village, RC Puram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District from Bricmor Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., and assured the de-facto complainant that he would accommodate 5000 Sq.Yards in place of 2500 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.298 in Villa Project. He further told the de-facto complainant that he is going to construct multi- storeyed residential apartments and executed MOUs on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper vide BB575067 in favour of the de-facto complainant dated 15.02.2024 and stated that he paid amounts to the landlords in respect of land covered under Sy.No.298. A2 also executed allotment letters to nearly 32 members in the month of February, 2024 stating that he will provide flats in high-rise residential apartment in Sy.No.352 according to the payments made by them in villa projects. The de-facto complainant further came to know that A2 is absconding and that he handed over construction works to Anvita Built Pro. LLP. The said Anvita Built Pro., LLP did not give any assurance to the de- facto complainant