THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6456 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.2135 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Hanumakonda, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’)

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de-facto complainant lodged a report on 04.07.2023 against the petitioner and other accused stating that accused No.1 is the husband of the petitioner and they were residing as tenants of her back side house and acquaintance persons, they asked her money for their business for one month. On believing she gave an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- on 18.06.2021. Then they said that if they invested her money at the accused No.3 - Vallam Ramesh and will get her money double. After that she asked accused Nos.1 and 2 about her money, but they dodged the matter.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.377 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and they filed the charge sheet, vide C.C.No.2135 of 2023, before the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Hanumakonda. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceeding against her.

4. Heard Sri Mohd. Fasiuddin, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State. Though notice is served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime, solely based on a fabricated complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant and that the complaint lacks any specific date or time of occurrence, and the FIR was registered after a delay of over two years, thereby undermining its credibility and raising suspicion of malicious intent. It was further submitted that the de-facto complainant, harboring a personal grudge, colluded with police officials to create false documents and harass the petitioner and her husband. The petitioner has no connection with the alleged offence, and there is no evidence or reasonable ground to believe that she committed any crime and that a plain reading of the FIR reveals no fraudulent inducement or deception under Section 420 of IPC, and that non-payment alone does not constitute the offence of cheating. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there exists a prior relationship between the de- facto complainant and the accused persons as landlord and tenant. Based on the statement of the Investigating Officer, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 have cheated the de-facto complainant. However, no documentary evidence was collected to substantiate these allegations and prayed the Court to pass appropriate orders.

7. In view of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2 pursuant to a complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant. However, the complaint is vague and lacks specificity regarding the date and time of the alleged occurrence, and the FIR was registered after an unexplained delay of more than two years, casting serious doubt on its veracity and suggesting possible malice. Further, there is no prima facie material on record indicating any fraudulent inducement or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner so as to attract the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC.

8. Further, mere non-payment in a business transaction or breach of contractual