IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.726 OF 2020 DATE: 06-03-2026 Between:

Prathap Reddy Puttamreddy and six others ...Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, and another ... Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 and 8 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.167 of 2019 on the file of learned Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956.

2. Heard Sri Enuganti Sudhanshu Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned counsel, representing learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners have violated Section 628 of the Companies Act by submitting false statements i.e., Balance Sheets for the years 2007-08 and 2008- 09 through online to the office of respondent No.2-de facto complainant i.e., Registrar of Companies for the State of Telangana and thus, are punishable for the violation of Section

628 of the Companies Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petition is barred by limitation. The de facto complainant has knowledge about the alleged offence on 09.11.2012 itself, when the first inspection report was submitted, but by suppressing the same, to cover up the limitation aspect, the de facto complainant claims to have gained knowledge on 12.04.2018, on which date the supplementary inspection report has been filed. He further submitted that there is no difference between the first inspection report and the supplementary inspection report, however, it has been brought into existence just to overcome the limitation aspect. He further submitted that the cognizance order passed by the trial Court does not disclose any reasoning and that without application of mind, the trial Court has passed the cognizance order, which is not maintainable. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the department had called for a supplementary report to clarify certain points and hence, on receiving the supplementary report on 12.04.2018, they gained knowledge and thus, the complaint has been lodged. Thus, the complaint is well within limitation.

He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. It is borne out by record that respondent No.2 has filed a complaint before the Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad, which was registered as C.C.No.167 of 2019 under Section 628 of the Companies Act. Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are the Directors and petitioner No.6 is the Company Secretary of petitioner No.8-Company and they are the signatories to the Balance Sheets as on 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009. The said complaint is filed based upon the findings that were concluded by the Inspecting Officer under Part-A of the Supplementary Inspection Report that was submitted to the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 12.04.2018. The office of Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, ‘CBI’) vide letters, dated 04.02.2012, 14.05.2012, 07.02.2013 and 24.05.2013, addressed to the Regional Director (South East Region), Hyderabad, sought for clarifications/answers on the questionnaire that was submitted, which led to the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs to answer such questionnaires. It was pointed out that subsequent to the answers that were submitted to the CBI, the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, vide letter, dated 24.07.2013, has directed the Inspecting Officer to point out specific violations of the provisions of the Companies Act noticed during the inspection of the subject Company. Further, the supplementary inspection by the appointed inspecting officer led t