THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3415 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in CC.No.10065 of 2022 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a dispute arose between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner/accused No. 1, where the respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner promised to arrange a loan of Rs. 25 lakhs for his business needs, for which the respondent No. 2 handed over the original title deed and link documents of his house to the petitioner, for the purpose of arranging the funds. However, the funds were not arranged, and the petitioner allegedly handed over the documents to another accused person. The respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner executed a letter of assurance to return the documents but failed to do so. After initially lodging a complaint with the police, which was closed as civil in nature, the respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint before the trial Court, and the trial Court directed the police to investigate the case, thereby, an FIR was registered against the petitioner.

Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri P.Maheedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 – State, and Sri Konda Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant criminal proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2, who is seeking to give a criminal color to what is essentially a civil dispute. He averred that the petitioner, a small-time employee with a real estate firm, had no involvement in any criminal activity and merely facilitated an introduction between Respondent No. 2 and Accused No. 2 in the normal course of business, and that, it is the Respondent No. 2 who voluntarily handed over his title documents to Accused No. 2 for the purpose of arranging a hand loan, and those documents have remained in the custody of Accused No. 2 ever since.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner incessantly contended that the cognizance taken by the trial Court in C.C. No. 10065 of 2022 is mechanical and bereft of any judicial reasoning. He lamented that the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 not only lacks specific allegations against the petitioner but fails to establish any prima facie offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, as there was no exchange of money involving the petitioner, nor, any act attributable to her that could constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust. He asserted that the allegations against the petitioner are wholly vague, absurd, and inherently improbable, thereby, failing to attract the ingredients of the alleged offences. Therefore, while advocating that the proceedings, if allowed to continue, would amount to gross abuse of the process of law and cause irreparable prejudice to the petitioner, he prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, and contended that the averments of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, would disclose that there are serious set of allegations against the petitioner which require trial. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition, stating that the same lacks merits.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner, with deliberate and dishonest intent, induced Respondent No. 2 by making false assurances of arranging financial assistance, and in order to gain his trust, deceptively shared WhatsApp images of cheques and bank-related documents. Believing the petitioner, the Responde