THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Criminal Petition No.9459 of 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) for quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.221 of 2025 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet, Mancherial District against the petitioner/accused No.1.

2. I have heard Mr. Ravi Chandra Bejjaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

3. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused No.1 in C.C.No.221 of 2025 for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

4. The prosecution’s case, in summary, is that the petitioner/ Accused No.1 introduced the Tanvitha Ayurvedic Scheme to Respondent No.2/de facto complainant, enticing him with the assurance that an investment of Rs.1,00,000/- would yield a commission of Rs.18,000/- within 20 days. Persuaded by this representation, Respondent No.2, along with a co-employee, enrolled in the scheme. Subsequently, he invested a total sum of Rs.24 lakhs, which was deposited into the bank accounts of the petitioner and co-accused/Accused Nos. 2 to 4. Initially, the de facto complainant received Rs.10,800/- credited to his wallet, but no further returns were forthcoming. Upon approaching the petitioner for clarification, the latter assured repayment of the invested sum and requested additional time. Realizing that he had been deceived, the de facto complainant proceeded to lodge a police complaint.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner himself invested funds in the said company and suffered financial loss, asserting that he is, in fact, a victim akin to the de facto complainant. It is further submitted that a police complaint has already been registered against the company for cheating. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioner defrauded the de facto complainant is, according to counsel, unfounded and lacks credibility. Counsel argues that if introducing investors is construed as an indictable act, then numerous other individuals, including the de facto complainant, would also fall within the scope of criminal liability. Moreover, the complaint does not disclose any elements that would establish dishonest or fraudulent intent attributable to the petitioner, nor does it specify the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating. Accordingly, counsel asserts that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the judicial process and seeks quashment of the same.

6. Conversely, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, by the petitioner’s own admission, he was the individual who introduced the scheme to the de facto complainant. Furthermore, the bank transaction records clearly indicate that substantial sums were deposited into the accounts of the petitioner and the co- accused, as well as the company. The petitioner’s claim that he too invested in the company would not insulate him from the prosecution. The available material establishes that the petitioner acted as an agent or intermediary for the company. Hence, the evidence gathered thus far is sufficient to establish a prima facie case warranting trial. The veracity and credibility of this evidence can only be assessed during the course of trial proceedings. Therefore, any interference at this preliminary stage would be premature and unwarranted.

7. I have perused the materials on record.

8. It is undisputed that the petitioner/Accused No.1, acting as an agent, introduced the company’s investment scheme to the de facto complainant by promising substantial returns. The details of the deposits uncovered during the investigation reveal that, with the exception of Rs.6 lakhs, the remaining amounts deposited in various installments were credited into the accounts of the petitio