IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD * * * *

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.3829 of 2019 Between:

T.Anjana Reddy, D/o.T.Vinayak Ravi Reddy.

Petitioner/Accused No.4.

AND The State of Telangana and another. Respondents/De-facto Complainant.

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:12.08.2025 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes ____________________ EV VENUGOPAL, J * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL + CRIMINAL PETITION No.3829 of 2019 %12.08.2025 # Between:

T.Anjana Reddy, D/o.T.Vinayak Ravi Reddy.

Petitioner/Accused No.4.

AND The State of Telangana and another. Respondents/De-facto Complainant.

! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel rep. Sri A.Chandra Shaker, learned counsel for the petitioner.

^Counsel for the respondents : Sri Nachiketa Joshi, learned senior counsel rep. Mrs.Manasvi Reddy Jakka, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State

? Cases referred

1.(1992) SCC (Cr.) 426

2.SLP (Crl) No.12354 of 2024

3.(2019) 11 SCC 706

4.Crl.A.No.1884 of 2013

5.(2015) 4 SCC 609 6.(2022) 15 SCC 430 7.(2008) 5 SCC 668 8.(2011) 1 SCC 176 9.(2024) 10 SCC 690

10.Crl.P.No.8108 of 2022

11.(2019) 16 SCC 547

12.(2011) 13 SCC 412 13.(2008) 15 SCC 582

14.2023 OnLine SC 951

15.(2013) 11 SCC 673 16.(2013) 6 SCC 740 17.(2023) 8 SCC 734

18.221 SCC OnLine AP 4466 19.2018 SCC OnLine SC 3713

20.2025 OnLine SC 983

21.(2019) 14 Supreme Court Cases 350 22.(2021) 16 Supreme Court Cases 142 23.(2025) 2 Supreme Court Cases 604

24. (2021)19 SCC 401 25.(2015) 11 SCC 776 26.(2012) 10 SCC 155 27. (2021) 5 SCC 795 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.3829 of 2019

ORDER :

The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings against her in CC No.410 of 2018 on the file of the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 403, 406 and 120(b) of IPC. Subsequently, vide orders in IA No.1 of 2025 calendar case number is amended as CC No.4442 of 2024 instead of CC No.410 of 2018. 2. Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.Chandra Shaker, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nachiketa Joshi, learned senior counsel appearing for Mrs.Manasvi Reddy Jakka, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.1.

3. The case as projected by the 2^nd respondent against the petitioner and other accused is that on 25.03.2017 the 2^nd respondent, which engaged in the business of sporting and other recreational activities, lodged a complaint alleging that the accused Nos.2 to 4, representing accused No.1 approached the complainant through a common friend viz. Chamundeshwari Nath and stated that the accused No.2 promoted a super car racing company by name M/s.Machdar Motorsports Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “MMSPL”)/A1 and is allocating franchises in 9 cities and the accused Nos.3 and 4 misrepresented that the franchises are pretty much on demand and the accused No.2 stated that various celebrities and their business houses have bought their franchises quoting cine actor Mr.Nagarjuna for Hyderabad, Bollywood actor Mr.Shahrukh Khan for Mumbai and cricketer Mr.Sachin Tendulkar for Delhi. Stating thus the accused misguided and misrepresented respondent No.2 to invest in and opt for Chennai Franchise. Accordingly, the complainant agreed to invest by taking Chennai Franchise. The subscription fee for one year was Rs.12,50,00,000/- payable in three stipulated instalments. After deliberations, the complainant company was induced to pay an amount of Rs.7,44,52,500/