Criminal proceedings against an accused can be quashed if allegations do not establish her direct involvement or dishonest intention, as per sections 406 and 420 IPC.

ORDER :

J. Sreenivas Rao, J.

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1789 of 2022 on the file of the XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and 156(3) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused No.1, a close friend of the complainant for the past ten years, approached the complainant in January 2020 seeking financial assistance for investment in a project of SS Constructions, owned by accused No.2. The project related to laying roads on the National Highway at Kurnool, allegedly awarded to SS Constructions by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Believing their representations, the complainant advanced Rs.15,00,000/- in February 2020, which was transferred to accused No.2’s account, on the assurance of repayment within 45 days. In March 2020, the accused again sought Rs.10,00,000/-, and the complainant paid Rs.7,00,000/- through bank transfers and Rs.3,00,000/- in cash. They again promised to return Rs.25,00,000/- within 45 days but failed to do so. In October 2020, the accused again sought Rs.20,00,000/-, assuring that a total of Rs.45,00,000/- would be repaid within 45 days. After receiving the money, they neither repaid the amount nor responded to calls, and later blocked the complainant’s number. Their conduct shows clear dishonest intention to cheat. When confronted, both accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Fearing for his life and property, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

3. Heard Mr.K.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr.Ravi, learned counsel representing M/s.Joshi and Chillara Legal Associates LLP, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case merely because she is a friend of accused No.2. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that respondent No.2 herself has stated in the complaint that, believing the representations made by accused No.2 and after going through the contract document awarded in favour of S.S. Constructions, represented by its proprietor, R. Suman Murali Reddy, accused No.2, she had paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to accused No.2. Thereafter, she gave further amount to accused No.2 on various dates, and the total amount came to Rs.45,00,000/- However, accused No.2 failed to repay the said amount despite repeated demands made by respondent No.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has neither paid nor transferred any amount to the petitioner. The entire amount was paid only to accused No.2. Merely because accused No.2 failed to refund the said amount, the petitioner has been falsely implicated as accused No.1. There is no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner. The entire allegations of dishonest intention and failure to repay the amount within the stipulated time are only against accused No.2. Hence, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioner. The nature of the allegations made in the complaint pertains only to recovery of money due and payable by accused No.2, and the said allegations are purely civil