The distinction between civil disputes and criminal charges must be clearly established, ensuring that insufficient evidence does not result in unjust prosecution under criminal law.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused No.4 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.1973 of 2022 on the file of the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr. Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C.Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that all the accused, including the petitioner-accused No.4, are representatives of M/s. Adwaitha Global Business Private Limited, formerly known as Nisarga Corporation (hereinafter referred as ‘Company’). The accused have induced the de facto complainant and several others to invest substantial amounts in their Company by promising huge profits, including 5% interest and incentives, thereby collecting approximately Rs.7.00 crores. The de facto complainant has invested Rs.93,03,090/- in the Company of the accused and as a token of acknowledgement, accused No.2 had executed a Corporate Guarantee for loan on 30.07.2019 duly signed by him. On the very same day, accused No.3 had executed a Support Finance Agreement. The petitioner-accused No.4 has issued a cheque in the name of Nisarga Corporation for Rs.36,33,090/- duly signed by her. However, instead of utilizing the funds as represented, the accused misappropriated the amounts for aquaculture related activities, thereby cheating the investors. The cheques issued in favour of the victims for repayment of the amount invested by them were dishonoured.

4. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.1. The petitioner is the sister of accused No.3. The de facto complainant used to invest amounts in the Company of the accused and received good returns out of the said business transactions. To that effect, the de facto complainant and the Company, represented by accused No.3, have entered into an investment agreement dated 27.02.2020 with certain terms and conditions.

4.2. According to the complaint, the allegation against the petitioner is that she has issued a cheque for Rs.36,33,090/- to the de facto complainant. However, the said cheque was issued by the petitioner to the de facto complainant towards collateral security on the insistence of her brother and that too on condition that it is to be presented only after six months, with prior notice to her. In violation of a specific clause of the investment agreement, dated 27.02.2020, the de facto complainant presented the cheque without issuing any prior notice to her, thereby causing it dishonour and subsequently lodged the present complaint against the petitioner and others, with all false allegations. When the de facto complainant has acted in violation of the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the question of prosecuting the petitioner does not arise.

4.3. In fact, accused No.3 has repaid certain amounts to the de facto complainant with great difficulty in the lockdown period due to the repeated harassment and torture made by him. Despite having received the amounts, the de facto complainant has wantonly and intentionally filed the present complaint by suppressing the true facts, with the sole intention of unlawfully extracting mon