THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2944 of 2025

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings

in C.C.No.4840 of 2022 pending on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad where the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.3 to be tried under Sections

403,406,420,424 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for brevity)

2. Heard Sri Naseeruddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri V.T.Kalyan, learned counsel, representing Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for

respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner without going into the merits of the matters submits that the proceedings in C.C.No.4840 of 2022 are stayed by this Court on 11.08.2025 and further proceedings are yet to be commenced. He squarely relied upon the Article 20 Sub clause

2 of Constitution of India which has been reproduced as under:

“Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution protects against double jeopardy, stating that:

Protection in respect of conviction for offences:

(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

4. Relying upon the said Article learned counsel would like to draw the attention of this Court to the proceedings conducted against the petitioner in C.C.No.119 of 2005 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. He would submit that in the said charge sheet the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.6 and after conducting thorough trial the petitioner has been found not guilty vide its order dated 07.10.2011, for the offences under Sections

406 and 420 of IPC and accordingly, the petitioner has been acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for brevity).

4.1. He would further submit that subjecting the petitioner to undergo prosecution and punishment under same sections of law arising out of same set of allegations would amount to abuse of process of law. He relied upon the Judgment passed in Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.T.Antony Vs. State of Kerala, 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 276 (SC). He would submit that if the petitioner is allowed to continue to face the prosecution, the valuable right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 20(2) of Constitution of India would be defeated and would stands vitiated.

Accordingly, seeks indulgence of this Court.

5. Sri V.T.Kalyan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the de-facto complainant is the Registrar of Companies and upon the complaint being filed by de-facto complainant, charge sheet has been filed after thorough investigation and the entire crime has been investigated by the CID Police. Hence, would seek to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 sailing on the same lines of learned Central Government Standing Counsel would submit that after thorough investigation charge sheet has been laid down and all the witnesses would speak against the petitioner as he is involved in the said crime. Unless and until the trial is conducted, the truth cannot be elicited and the petitioner cannot seek protection under Article 20(2) of Constitution of India in the present case. However, he would submit that in the instant case the petitioner relied upon the Judgment passed in C.C.No.119 of 2005 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Though no appeal has been filed against the said judgment