Court determined insufficient evidence against certain accused, quashing proceedings while allowing charges against others to continue.

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 petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 in Crime No.1286 of 2024 of KPHB 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 from either Swiggy or the Railway Department.

3. At this juncture, two individuals were introduced, claiming to be senior officers of the Railway Department. Through sources well-known to the complainant, she discovered that these individuals were actually the parents of Accused No.1. Surprisingly, they are character artists in the film industry and have allegedly defrauded many people using the same modus operandi. 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.

4. 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 thereby, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceeding against them.

5. 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.

6. Learned earned counsel for the petitioners submitted that accused Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of accused No.1, are innocent for the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present case and that there are no specific allegations against accused Nos.4 and 5, except a solitary accusation that they impersonated Central Government employees in an alleged attempt to deceive the de-facto complainant and that accused Nos. 4 and 5 are known character artists in the film industry and have no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences. Their involvement has been unnecessarily dragged into the matter.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the dispute arises from a business relationship between the de-facto complainant and accused Nos.1 and 2. Even after the date of the alleged incident, WhatsApp communications continued between the de-facto complainant and accused No.1, which undermines the credibility of the allegations and that the present petition is filed with the sole intention o