The court upheld the need for a trial, ruling that allegations of cheating and misrepresentation warranted investigation and could not be dismissed at the quashing stage under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

E.V. VENUGOPAL, J.

The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings against her in CC No.410 of 2018 on the file of the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, registered for the offences under Sections 420 , 403, 406 and 120(b) of IPC. Subsequently, vide orders in IA No.1 of 2025 calendar case number is amended as CC No.4442 of 2024 instead of CC No.410 of 2018.

2. Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.Chandra Shaker, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nachiketa Joshi, learned senior counsel appearing for Mrs.Manasvi Reddy Jakka, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.1.

3. The case as projected by the 2^nd respondent against the petitioner and other accused is that on 25.03.2017 the 2^nd respondent, which engaged in the business of sporting and other recreational activities, lodged a complaint alleging that the accused Nos.2 to 4, representing accused No.1 approached the complainant through a common friend viz. Chamundeshwari Nath and stated that the accused No.2 promoted a super car racing company by name M/s.Machdar Motorsports Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “MMSPL”)/A1 and is allocating franchises in 9 cities and the accused Nos.3 and 4 misrepresented that the franchises are pretty much on demand and the accused No.2 stated that various celebrities and their business houses have bought their franchises quoting cine actor Mr.Nagarjuna for Hyderabad, Bollywood actor Mr.Shahrukh Khan for Mumbai and cricketer Mr.Sachin Tendulkar for Delhi. Stating thus the accused misguided and misrepresented respondent No.2 to invest in and opt for Chennai Franchise. Accordingly, the complainant agreed to invest by taking Chennai Franchise. The subscription fee for one year was Rs.12,50,00,000/- payable in three stipulated instalments. After deliberations, the complainant company was induced to pay an amount of Rs.7,44,52,500/- towards opting Chennai Franchisee and accordingly, the complainant paid the said amount through cheque bearing No.071494 dated 14.11.2011 drawn on Axis Bank, Film Nagar Branch, Hyderabad, which was encashed by the accused No.1 company on 24.11.2011. Even after lapse of three months, the accused failed to start the business and postponed and dragged-on the matter. Thereafter, upon conducting a little enquiry, the complainant came to know that not more than four franchises have been subscribed out of the total 9 franchises and none of the remaining subscribers paid any considerable amount for subscription of franchise. A1 company never got the remaining franchises filled up nor started the i1 Car Racing Series even after a year. Upon persistent demands of the complainant, A1 represented by A2 agreed to refund an amount of Rs.5,00,00,000/- in two instalments out of Rs.7,44,52,500/-. Accordingly, a memorandum of understanding was entered into on 01.02.2012 fixing 10.04.2012 as first date for payment of Rs.2,50,00,000/- and remaining amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/- to be paid on or before 10.06.2012. The copy of the said MOU was kept with the accused No.1. However, even after expiry of the said dates, the accused did not repay the amount as agreed. Hence, the complaint.

4. Basing on the above complaint, the respondent/police registered FIR No.59 of 2017, dated 25.03.2017, conducted investigation, arrested accused No.2 on 24.01.2018, examined LWs.1 to 14, collected documents and after completion of investigation laid charge-sheet agai