THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10933 of 2025

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9912 of 2024 against the petitioners- Accused herein on the file of the VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri P.U.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second petitioner is the father of the first petitioner and that the second petitioner and the de-facto complainant were colleagues at Singareni Collieries. He further submitted that the first petitioner developed an acquaintance with the de-facto complainant and it is alleged that the first petitioner borrowed certain amounts of money from her but failed to repay the same. According to the de-facto complainant, the amounts were transferred through Google Pay and other bank account transfers. It is alleged that despite repeated requests, the first petitioner failed to repay the said amounts. Learned counsel further submitted that even if any transactions took place between the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant, there is no reason to implicate the other family members as accused. He submitted that the complaint has been filed with false and baseless allegations against the petitioners and hence he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and stated that the alleged transactions are yet to be established during the course of trial. She further pointed out that there is no Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or agreement between the parties in respect of the alleged business said to have been conducted by the petitioners. She further submitted to pass appropriate orders.

5. Perused the record.

6. The complaint and charge sheet disclose allegations of offences under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that there were transactions between both parties, referring to page No. 53 of the case file, which shows that the petitioner No.1 had made payments amounting to Rs. 6,84,500 to the de-facto complainant. This indicates that there were indeed financial transactions between the de-facto complainant and petitioner No.1. The nature of the business conducted between the parties, the liability, if any, and the veracity of the allegations are all matters to be tested during the course of trial. At this stage, the Court is not inclined to interfere, as specific allegations have been made against the petitioners. Therefore, the matter is subject to trial and requires proper adjudication.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court, unless their presence is specifically required during the course of trial, provided that they shall be represented by their counsel on every date of hearing.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Dated:16.09.2025 gv