THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.11186, 11190 and 11192 OF 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Crl.P.No.11186 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner – accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.43 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial Cases under Economic Offences, CBI Court Complex, Nampally at Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 7(6) read with Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.

2. Crl.P.No.11190 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner – accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial Cases under Economic Offences, CBI Court Complex, Nampally at Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 7(6) read with Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.

3. Crl.P.No.11192 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner – accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.45 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial Cases under Economic Offences, CBI Court Complex, Nampally at Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 7(6) read with Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.

4. Since the petitioner is the accused No.1 in all the petitions, they are heard together and disposed off by way of this common order. Heard the submissions of Sri L.Harish, learned counsel representing Sri Praveen Kumar Challa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for respondent No.2.

5. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the allegations do not attract the ingredients of Section 7(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 and that accused No.1 is the Company Secretary and accused No.2 is the Company. He further submitted that the allegations that the company is not functioning at the given address and that it is not doing any software business as mentioned by it during its registration and that they are conducting fraudulent transactions is all false. He further submitted that none of the victims have given a complaint, therefore question of deceiving anybody does not arise. He further submitted that the said allegations do not point out any offence against the petitioner who is accused No.1 and the cognizance order dated 02.11.2023 is also defective and that cognizance is taken only against accused No.1 and accused No.2 is arrayed as proforma party, which is very wrong. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India has submitted that the petitioner herein is the Company Secretary and there is legal foundation for the alleged offences and the prima facie contents of the complaint do attract the offences against the petitioner. He further submitted that by virtue of the Orders of the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), accused No.2 company was ordered for Inquiry by the Ministry vide its letter dated 08.10.2021 to inquire into the sustained involvement of Chinese Nationals in fraudulent and money laundering activities through companies registered in India. During the course of Inquiry, it was found that accused No.2 company was not operating at the registered office and it was found that there is no such company existing in the premises. It is has been reported by the Inquiry Officer that A2 company in its memorandum of association stated that its business is to carry on the technical consulting of mobile application, e-commerce etc., but it is doing its business activities contrary to its objects mentioned in the MOA which is prejudicial to the interest of general public. It is further submitted in the Inquiry Report that as per the statement on oath given by the Practicing Company Secretary i.e. the accused No.1, has certified the incorporation of documents and that he developed acquaintance with Chinese Individuals through his friends and at their behest, the PCS incorporated the accused No.2 company and they wanted certain people to be as dumm