The court held that allegations lacking specificity do not warrant continuation of criminal proceedings against the accused.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS ’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 in Crime No.1286 of 2024 of KPHB Colony Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 354C and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘ IPC ’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.11.2024, the de- facto complainant lodged a report with the Station House Officer, KPHB Police Station, stating that she had launched a cloud kitchen under the name and style of “Srujana Enterprises,” providing food delivery services through the Swiggy app. Accused Nos. 1 and 2, in conspiracy with Accused No. 3, allegedly devised a scheme to misappropriate funds from the complainant. Accused No. 3 introduced herself as a celebrity and claimed to have strong connections and influential contacts in Central Government through her husband especially in Railway sector as Railway department seeks for cloud kitchen vendors. Subsequently, no opportunities materialized either from Swiggy or the Railway Department. When the complainant began questioning their conduct, the accused allegedly resorted to extortion tactics. They threatened to jeopardize her husband’s central government job and began submitting irrelevant RTI queries regarding his employment profile. Under pressure, the complainant reportedly complied with their instructions, including handing over her debit card to Accused No. 1, who withdrew Rs.14,00,000/-, along with Rs.37,00,000 in cash and the said cash was pooled from her credit cards, Dwakra loans, gold loans and debits from near and dear.

3. Basing on the same, the Police registered the case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 354C and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC . Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against her.

4. Heard Sri M. Phanindra Pavan Kashyap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Kalyana Rama Krishna, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.3 and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State. Though notice was served to respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and there is only one allegation against this petitioner in the report filed by the de-facto complainant i.e., she introduced herself as a celebrity and alleged that she know the persons in the Central Government except that, there is no specific allegation against her. He further submitted that there is no monetary transaction between the petitioner and the de- facto complainant to continue with the investigation. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that, apart from the allegation that the petitioner introduced herself as a Page 3 celebrity and claimed to know persons in the Central Government, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed the Court to pass appropriate orders.

7. In view of the submissions made by both learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the sole allegation against the petitioner is that she introduced herself as a page 3 celebrity and alleged that she know the persons in the Central Government. Except that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner has qualified in the Main examina