A complaint must detail specific allegations to establish elements of alleged criminal offences; lack thereof leads to quashing of proceedings.

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘ BNSS ’) by petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings against them in Cr.No.286 of 2025 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station. The offences alleged against petitioners are under Sections 316 (2), 318(4), 351(2) and 352 read with 3(5)

of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘ BNS ’).

2. Heard Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

Perused the material on record.

3. A memo is filed by learned counsel for petitioners stating that personal notice was taken out on respondent No.2 through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) and notice was sent to the same address mentioned in the complaint dated 26.02.2025. The remarks of the postal department states that “no such person in the address”.

4. On basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2/de facto complainant, an FIR bearing No.286 of 2025, dated 26.02.2025, came to be registered in Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda District, under Sections 316 (2), 318(4), 351(2) and 352 read with 3(5) of BNS .

5. It is the specific case of respondent No.2 that, for renovation of his house at Vanasthalipuram, he paid an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. A cheque was issued by petitioner No.1/accused No.1 (Josef Kumar) for the amount and that a promise was made by petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to respondent No.2 that they would complete all the furniture work within one month. It is further stated that even after a month, petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 did not complete the work. That when respondent No.2 asked petitioners as to why they did not complete the work, they abused respondent No.2 in filthy language and threatened him. That, with a criminal intent, petitioners took respondent No.2’s money, hence, the complaint.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 submitted that, on perusal of the complaint, the ingredients of the offences are not made out and there are no specific allegations, no date on cheque is mentioned that is issued by petitioners. That except stating that work is related to furniture at his residence, there are no details of the work to be carried out. The date, time and month of threatening and abusing of respondent No.2 in filthy language, is not forthcoming in the complaint. That the complaint is falsely lodged by respondent No.2 only to harass petitioners.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that it is a fit case for trial and no interference is necessitated as there is a breach of contract, cheating and breach of trust are made out.

8. Heard learned counsels, perused the record, considered the submissions.

9. A perusal of complaint does not indicate any details. It is the case of respondent No.2 that, for renovation of his house, an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was given to petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. However, the complaint does not mention on which date the amount was given and whether the amount was paid in cash or any other mode, whether on one occasion or multiple occasions is also not mentioned. The complaint only reflects that a work order was given to petitioners by respondent No.2 for renovation of his house. That, both petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 promised to complete the furniture work within one month. The date and month on which the promise was made to complete the furniture work is not mentioned. On