IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:03.02.2026 Between:

Marreddy Madhava Reddy …Petitioner/accused No.1 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another ... Respondents

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in CC No.2696 of 2018 on the file of XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medhchal-Malkajgiri at Kukatpally, for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 448, 379 and

506 read with 34 IPC.

2. Heard Sri A. Sameer Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1– State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein and his son Ujwal Reddy-accused No.2 have taken amount from the de facto complainant on promise of providing a job to his son and cheated him by not providing any job and not repaying the said amount.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the contents of the complaint itself are false as the petitioner’s son was missing in the year 2016, owing to which the petitioner has filed a complaint and based on the same, FIR No.1285 of 2016 was registered on 14.11.2016 and the present complaint is lodged against his son also, whose whereabouts are not known. Thus, the complaint itself is false, therefore, he submits that continuation of the proceedings against the accused would be an abuse of process of law and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner along with accused No.2 have taken Rs.2,50,000/- from the de facto complainant promising him that they would fetch a job to the son of the de facto complainant and later on, they failed to provide any job and have also not returned the said amount and when the de facto complainant questioned the accused, they abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. He therefore submitted that the allegations prima facie point out the offence, and hence the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed.

6. Perused the record.

7. It is alleged that the petitioner and his son Ujwal Reddy, who is shown as accused No.2, have acquaintance with the de facto complainant and his son and thus, have promised them that they are capable of providing him an employment in RTA office, Khairatabad as they are acquainted with the Minister of Transport of Telangana State. Believing their promise, the de facto complainant has paid them Rs.2,50,000/-. Subsequently, after one week, when the de facto complainant enquired with them to know the status, they have again demanded another Rs.1,00,000/- and on expressing his inability, having negotiated further the petitioner has sent his son Ujwal Reddy to the house of the de facto complainant to convince him to pay another amount of Rs.75,000/-. Accordingly, the de facto complainant has paid the said amount. Again subsequently said Ujwal Reddy met the de facto complainant at his daughter’s residence and stated that he needs to give a gift worth Rs.50,000/- to another person to facilitate the job, for which the daughter of the de facto complainant has handed over her credit card to him and under different transactions, Mr.Ujwal Reddy has drawn Rs.81,300/- and when the de facto complainant demanded, the petitioner issued cheques and when they were deposited, the cheques were returned with endorsement ‘no sufficient funds’. Then the de facto complainant approached the petitioner and the petitioner abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Thus, the allegations prima facie point out the offences under Sections

420, 406, 448, 379 and 506 IPC against the petitioners herein. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that his son went missing in 2016 and the contents of the present complaint point out the involvement