THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12615 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.02 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Gadwal (R), Jogulamba Gadwal, registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri S. Santosh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even as per the complaint, accused No.1 died and there is no allegation in the complaint as against accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the petitioners herein. Therefore, the allegations under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC do not get attracted against the petitioners. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased and that the investigation has revealed that Rs.4,00,000/- was transferred to the account of the petitioner No.1 who is accused No.2 and the bank account statement was collected in this regard. He further submitted that the petitioners herein have promised to settle the issue with the de-facto complainant, but they have withdrawn the said amounts and purchased Ac.2.03 guntas of land and got it registered in the name of accused No.3. He further submitted that they succeeded to the estate of the deceased and are bound by the liabilities also. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition .

5. Perused the record.

It is alleged that the deceased-K.Venkatesh was running Angel One share Market Office in the name of his wife and that he made people believe that if they invest money, they would get good returns and thus, believing his words, the de-facto complainant has invested amounts through Phonepe to a total extent of Rs.25 lakhs in installments. Along with him, his brother and few others also have invested the amounts. In favour of some people, the deceased have given Bond Papers and Promissory Notes and on 04.08.2024, while he was travelling to Hyderabad, K. Venkatesh has died due to an accident and after the death, when they questioned about the repayment of the money invested by them, the father of K.

Venkatesh, wife, brother-Ravi, Brother-in-law/Radha Krishna have promised to settle the matter and stated that they would look into the accounts and pay them back, but they failed to do so. They have also learned that the accused have purchased a land to an extent of Ac.2,30 guntas at Macharla Village in the name of accused No.3/Radha Krishna who is the brother-in-law of the deceased. Thus, the allegations point out an offence of serious nature against the petitioners herein. The petitioner counsel contends that the deceased who collected the amount from the de-facto complainant has passed away and that the allegations under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC do not attract against the petitioners. The facts brought out during the investigation with regard to the alleged purchase of Ac.2.00 guntas of the land, out of the deposits collected from the victims needs to be further investigated into. Thus, there is a prima-facie case against the petitioners. The process of investigation is still in progress. Thus, the truth is yet to be unravelled, whether Sections 406 or 420 of IPC get attracted or not cannot be decided at this stage. It is alleged that the deceased was entrusted with money and the petitioner No.1/accused No.2 succeeded to the Estate of the deceased, there is an alleged purchase of property in the name of petitioner No.2/accused No.3.

Thus, it is not proper to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

6. The petitioner counsel has relied upon Arshad Neyaz Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, Spl.Leave Petition(Criminal).No.3606 of 2024, wherein it was held that the offence under Sections 406 and 420