M. MUNIRAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for indulgence of this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.192 of 2021 before the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the 5th respondent who is defacto complainant gave a written complaint to the Joint Commissioner of Police on 13/10/2021 stating that he met A1 namely K.Jayapratap in the month of September 2019 and he proposed and offered that if the 5th respondent invests an amount of Rs.1.20 Crores, he would return an amount of Rs.3.00 Crores within one week or less. When questioned regarding the viability of the proposed business, A1/Jayapratap informed that two civil police officers based in Tirupati were also associated with the project and investing cash. On 28/10/2019, this petitioner allegedly met the 5th respondent in his office and convinced regarding the project and its viability. Further, the petitioner guaranteed the returns. It is further averred that the petitioner was not associated with the company in any manner and when questioned the petitioner allegedly informed that since he was a government employee, he cannot be a part of private business. Thereafter, he also met other police officers and when questioned regarding the security for the amount to be given, A1/Jayapratap handed over the land documents to an extent of four acres situated in Khammam area. On 29/10/2019, Rs.1.20 Crores were handed over to A1 in the presence of this petitioner/A2. Thereafter, there was no response from either A1 or this petitioner, for which reason criminal complaint was filed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that legal notice dtd. 6/8/2020 was issued by the 5th respondent in which he stated that on the advice of the petitioner's verbal guarantee, he gave loan to third parties. Since false allegations are leveled in the complaint, proceedings against the petitioner have to be quashed. Further none of the allegations leveled against the petitioner make out the ingredients of offence under Sec. 420 of IPC. Even according to the complaint money was not handed over to this petitioner, as such,sec. 406 of IPC is not made out. Further, the question of cheating does not arise since it was A1 who had asked for investment and this petitioner was only present when certain amounts were passed on. For the said reason, the proceedings have to be quashed against this petitioner.