THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.16409 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) praying this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.6, 7 and 22 in FIR.No.768 of 2024 on the file of the Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 5 of the Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short ‘TSPDFEA’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant, alleged that Alkapudi Ananda Kumar (A1) and Chevula Ramchandar (A2), the Directors of Pudami Infra Projects, induced him to join the company with false promises, and that they claimed that if customers deposited ₹1 lakh, it would be returned with double the amount, and for security, the company would register a plot in the name of customer, and also promised that if a customer deposited ₹10 lakhs, they would register a 100 square yard plot. On believing said promises, the complainant joined the company and, along with 16 other Deputy General Managers (DGMs), mobilized ₹36 crores from 150 marketing staff. However, the company directors stopped making payments and failed to register the plots as promised, leaving an outstanding due of ₹22,37,47,882/-. It was further alleged that despite repeated requests from the complainant and the other DGMs, the directors procrastinated and failed to take any action. As a result, the complainant filed a complaint, which led to the registration of FIR No.768 of 2024 and arraying the petitioners as accused Nos.6, 7 and 22. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri P.Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent No.1 - State.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have no involvement in the allegations leveled by respondent No.2, and averred that they did not commit any offence, as alleged, and are being wrongly implicated in the case. He contended that the petitioners were arrayed as accused solely based on the confessional statement of Accused No.3, without any corroborating evidence. He asserted that merely working under Accused No.3 does not imply that the petitioners were involved in the alleged offences. He divulged that petitioners were initially customers who invested in the company, believing in the promises made by the accused, and later, they were employed in the company as Deputy General Managers, responsible for mobilizing customers as per the instructions of company. He reiterated that the petitioners had no involvement in the financial matters of the company and that they had never intentionally induced any customers to deposit their money in the company. Therefore, while advocating that the petitioners themselves are victims of the accused, he prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in FIR.No.768 of 2024.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and submitted that the petitioners were implicated in the case basing on the confession of A3 and that the matter revolves around huge sums of money that was invested in company by its customers, believing that they would be entitled to properties in return. Therefore, while advocating that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are of serious nature and involving crores of sums, he prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition stating that the matter requires detailed investigation and full fledged trial.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, the contention of learned coun