THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.15187 OF 2024

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioner/accused No.3 to quash the proceedings against him in F.I.R.No.234 of 2022 dated 26.10.2022 and consequently set aside all consequential proceedings taken pursuant to F.I.R.No.234 of 2022 registered by the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against petitioner are under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal

Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. TPS.Harsha, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State and Mr. B.Aravind Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3,

4 and 5. Perused the material on record.

3. Three complaints by different persons i.e., respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are lodged. The contents of

all the complaints are similar in nature. Copies of complaints are placed on record at page Nos.16, 25, 32 and 44 (vide U.S.R.No.27059 of 2025), a common complaint is placed on record (by a Memo in Crl.P.No.2705 of 2025). The gist of these complaints is that two persons, Mr. C. Parthasarathy and V. Mahesh, (petitioner/A3) cheated and committed criminal breach of trust with an intention to cause loss to the complainants (arrayed as respondent Nos.2 to 5). F.I.Rs., are registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

4. F.I.R.No.234 of 2022 came to be registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Mr. Vijay Kumar Bachalakuri (respondent No.2). In the said complaint, it is stated that Mr. C. Parthasarathy and petitioner/A3 are Directors of Karvy Realty (India) Limited, lured the complainant(s) and three other persons seeking to extend an amount of Rs.85,00,000/- by causing investments in the company. That they cheated, defrauded and caused loss to them. Hence, the complaint.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/A3 submitted herein that petitioner ceased to be a Director of Karvy Realty (India) Limited from 31.03.2015 (due to registration under Section 168) of FORM DIR-12 (annexed at Page No.62 of the material papers). A copy issued by the Registrar of Companies, which refers to appointment and qualification of Directors and other aspects is placed on record (Page No.62).

6. It is submitted that from a perusal of copy (Page No.64), it is apparent that one Mr. Mahesh Vijayagopal (petitioner/A3), who was a Director, ceased to be a Director w.e.f. 31.03.2015. The term reflected at page No.64 is “cessation” and the Director Identification Number (DIN) is reflected as 00800219 and the resignation was under Section 168 of the Companies Act. It is contended that once petitioner/A3 ceased to be a Director, question of petitioner/A3 inviting or inducing for investment in the Company cannot be sustained and the complaint is baseless and is made only to implicate the petitioner which is not tenable under law. It is further submitted that on a perusal of all the complaints, no overt acts are specifically alleged against petitioner/A3.

7. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that to charge the petitioner/A3, specific allegation or accusations of inducement are to be made out from the complaint. But, no specific allegation or accusation is made in any of the complaints. In the absence of such specific allegation, petitioner/A3 cannot be mulched under Sections 406 and

420 of IPC.

8. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 668

9. Learned Senior Counsel invited attention of this Court to complaints of respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. On the basis of the contents of complaints, it is submitted that no ingredients of the Sections are made out to attract the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC against petitioner/accused No.3. In fact, it is reiterated that petitioner/accused No.3 had dem