O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioner/accused No.3 to quash the FIR/Crime No.347 of 2024 of P.S. Bhanoor, Sanga Reddy District for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 316(4) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’).

2. Heard Mr. M.Keshav Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1–State.

3. On the basis of complaint of respondent No.2, an FIR bearing No.347 of 2024 was registered on 24.11.2024 for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 316(4) read with Section 3(5) of BNS. The gist of the complaint is that respondent No.2 appointed Alli Kumar Swamy (Accused No.1) as Manager of HPCL Outlet namely Durga Filling Station at Kardhannor and he was bringing his son Teja Goud (accused No.2) to the filling station. Believing the manager (accused No.1), respondent No.2 left to United States. That accused No.1 colluded with customers namely P.Bhaskar, Sri Sai Earth Movers Company, Srinivasa Constructions, OSR Constructions Ranjith and Shradda Saboori and misappropriated amounts. It is further averred that these customers did not pay the bills, in spite of filling fuel. That when respondent No.2 returned from USA and asked the customers for pending bill amounts, they stated that amounts were paid to accused No.1. That when asked, accused No.1 informed that customers did not pay bills. That respondent No.2 asked for bank statement of customers and they did not respond. It is also averred in the complaint that accused No.1 did not give pending bill details and threatened that he would commit suicide, if pressurized. That accused Nos.1 and 2 along with the customers misappropriated the amount. Hence, the complaint.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.3 submitted that all allegations are false and baseless. That petitioner/accused No.3 paid the bill amounts and that there are no dues. It is further submitted that as petitioner is one of the customers, allegations are levelled without any basis. It is also submitted that petitioner is being subjected to harassment to pay bill amounts, complaint is lodged only to harass the petitioner and is liable to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted that in the complaint, it is specifically alleged that amounts have not been paid, in spite of requests, causing loss to respondent No.2. It is further submitted that in the complaint, names of the persons who cheated are specifically mentioned and hence, it is not a case for interference, as name of petitioner/accused No.3 is mentioned in the complaint, the proceedings be continued. 6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.

7. On perusal of the complaint, it is observed that petitioner/accused No.3 is named in the complaint and stated that accused No.3 is one of the customers of HPCL Outlet namely Durga Filling Station at Kardhannor and that respondent No.2 is the owner of filling station. Even the mobile number of accused No.3 is reflected in complaint. It is also stated in complaint that accused No.3 colluded with Manager of the filling station (accused No.1).

8. When queried, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State submitted that notices under Section 35(3) of BNSS were issued to accused Nos.1 and 2 on 30.09.2024 and that accused Nos.1 and 2 replied. It is brought to the notice to the Court that accused No.3 is absconding and Investigation is under progress.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner stated across the Bar that petitioner/accused No.3 is ready and willing to cooperate with the Investigation and that he is ready to reply to notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, if issued. Learned counsel submitted that a direction be given to the authorities to follow the guidelines as laid down in Arnesh Kumar