IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7533 OF 2024 DATED: 20^th FEBRUARY, 2026 Between Adapa Rama Krishna …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana represented by Public Prosecutor and one another …Respondents

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.627 of 2018 (old C.C.No.45 of 2013) on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem, registered for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri V. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused; Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri P. Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

03. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner-accused No.2, along with the accused No.1, allegedly started a business in the name and style of Amar Cotton Oil Mills Private Limited at Guntur. It is alleged that, in connection with the said business, the accused persons used to purchase cotton from farmers and traders in Chandrugonda and Kothagudem Mandals. It is the further alleged that during the year 2009, the accused persons purchased cotton from LW1 to LW11 and issued sixteen cheques on different dates towards payment of the sale consideration amounting to Rs.1,11,31,000/-. It is alleged that on 28.08.2009, when the respondent No.2 approached the bank for withdrawal of the cheque amount, the bank authorities, after verifying the account, issued a certificate stating that there were insufficient funds in the account of the account holder. It is further alleged that some of the other alleged victims also approached the said bank and faced a similar situation with regard to dishonour of the cheques issued to them. Hence, the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the accused persons for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused No.2 is nothing to do with the alleged offence. It is contended that no dishonest or fraudulent intention can be attributed to the petitioner-accused No.2 from the inception of the transaction. All the allegations leveled against the petitioner-accused No.2 are civil in nature. It is further submitted that there is no incriminating material on record to substantiate the allegations made against the petitioner-accused. The respondent No.2 instead of filing the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed the present false case under Section 420 of IPC. The respondent No.2 did not array the company as accused. The dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature, and the respondent No.2 is attempting to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute. It is further submitted that this Court vide Order dated 13.07.2022 passed in CRL.P.No.2066 of 2013 quashed the proceedings against the accused No.1. The contents of the charge sheet do not disclose the necessary and essential ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 420 of the IPC.

05. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused while praying for the quashment of criminal proceedings relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sripati Singh (since deceased) through his son Gaurav Singh v. The State of Jharkhand and another¹, wherein it was held at Paragraph Nos.11, 12 & 22 that:

“11. In the background of what has been taken note by us and the conclusion reached by the High Court, insofar as the High Court arriving at the conclusion that no case punishable under Section 420 IPC can be made out in these facts, we are in agreement with such conclusion. This is due to the fact that even as per the case of the appellant the amount advanced by the appellant is towards the business transaction and a loan agreement had been entered into