Prosecution requires substantial evidence for allegations to meet legal standards; mere claims without evidence cannot justify quashing an FIR.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners – accused seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.569 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Cyber Crimes, Rachakonda, registered for the offences under Sections 316 (2), 319(2), 318(4), 338 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS, 2023”) and Section 66-C , 66-D Information and Technology Act-2000-2008 (for short “IT Act”).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Raghu Gurram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the allegations of prosecution against the petitioners are false and that the company of the petitioners itself is the victim and that their company is into business of imports and exports of agricultural items and that no prima-facie offences are made out against the petitioners. The ingredients of the offences i.e., Section 316 (2) does not get attracted as the petitioners are not entrusted with any property. He further submitted that Section 319 (2) does not get attracted as there is no allegation that the petitioners have committed cheating by impersonation. He further argued that there is no inducement made by the petitioners to attract the ingredients of Section 318 (4). He further argued that no alleged forgery is committed by the petitioners to attract the offence under Section 338 and further the ingredients of Section 66(d) under the ITA Act also does not get attracted against the petitioners. Therefore, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. Hence, prayed to quash the FIR.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed submitting that the petitioners herein are the husband and wife, operating the account of Krushivaibhav Agro Farmers Producers Company Limited. The FIR is lodged against unknown persons and it is common under Cyber Crimes unless the investigation reveals, nobody knows the actual accused. Therefore, he stated that though the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, the investigation revealed the involvement of the petitioners herein. The statements of their accounts reveal that within one month, the balance in their Joint Account has risen from Rs.29 to that of Rs.19 Crores and that during the said period, there are crores of transactions in the said account and the petitioners herein are hand in glove with accused No.1 in the said offence. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Petition No.315 of 2021 , wherein the petitioners is the Managing Director and the Director of Finance of Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited. The amounts are transferred to the account of the company i.e., Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited that the de-facto complainant made a complaint against the petitioners without making the company as a party, which is contrary to the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. Thus, the proceedings were quashed against the petitioners vide its orders dated 22.03.2022.

7. He also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Dayle De’souza Vs. Government of India , decided on 29.10.2021, [MANU/SC/1016/2021] wherein it was held that the company being a juristic person cannot be imprisoned, but it can be subjected to a fine which in itself is a punishment. Every punishment has adverse consequences and therefore, prosecution of the company is mandatory. The quash petition filed by the petitioners in the said case was dismissed by the High Court, but when the matter was carried in Appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has allowed the Appeal and quashed the proc