Telangana High Court
Onion Credit Private Limited vs T.Yashwanth Rao And Another on 30 April, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1713, 1916, 1917 and 2441 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by
the petitioners-accused Nos.6, 3, 1 and 5 respectively, seeking to quash
the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2925 of 2025 on the file of the
learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,
Hyderabad, arising out of Crime No.24 of 2022 of Central Crime Station,
Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under
Section 420 r/w. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC‘).
2. Since all the four criminal petitions are arising out of C.C.No.2925
of 2025, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common
order.
3. Heard Mr. V.Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing
Ms.Ayesha Saba, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.1916
and 1917 of 2022, Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned counsel representing
Mr. T.S.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in
Crl.P.Nos.1713 and 2441 of 2022; Mr. V.T.Kalyan, learned Special Public
Prosecutor representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India appearing for unofficial respondent and
2
Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State.
4. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 are the Companies. The
petitioners-accused Nos.5 and 6 are the practising Company Secretaries/
Chartered Accountants looking into the affairs of petitioners-accused
Nos.3 and 1 Companies, respectively.
5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto
complainant, who is the Registrar of Companies (ROC), lodged a
complaint stating that in collusion with Chinese fraudsters, accused
Nos.4 to 11 have opened virtual Companies-accused Nos.1 to 3 by
providing false information and also opened bank accounts in the name
of the Companies. The accused Nos.4 to 7 have certified/signed the
incorporation documents. All the accused in the crime have induced the
lower and middle class people in the name of instant loan mobile apps by
deducting high interest @ 36% per annum and processing fee of 23.6%.
During the course of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has visited the registered
Offices of accused Nos.1 to 3 Companies and found that the said
Companies are not operating at the addresses mentioned in the ROC.
6. Basing on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, a
case in Crime No.24 of 2022 was registered against the accused for the
3
offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 r/w. 120-B of IPC and
Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (for short ‘I.T.
Act‘). During the course of investigation, as it was found that the
lease/rental agreements which were submitted by the accused before the
ROC are genuine, the offences under Sections 465 and 468 of IPC and
Section 66-D of the I.T. Act are deleted. It was further found that the
accused are frequently changing their addresses. Even after entering into
the agreement, since the office was not opened by the accused, charge
sheet was filed against them for the offences under Section 420 r/w.
Section 120-B of IPC. The same was taken cognizance and numbered
as C.C.No.2925 of 2025. Since accused Nos.2 and 10 are absconding,
investigation against them is pending and separate charge sheet will be
filed against them as and when investigation will be concluded against
them.
7. Following are the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners:
7.1. The petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in
the case. They are in no way concerned with the offences alleged. The
petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 are the domestic Companies, which
have been incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013
(for short ‘the Act’). The accused Nos.8 and 9 are serving as common
4Directors of both the Companies. The said Companies were engaged in
the business of providing technical services and assistance to NBFCs
and they do not provide loans on its personal capacity. Further, certain
direct foreign investments were made by a Singapore entity named
Particle Technology Private Limited in petitioner-accused No.3 Company
and the same is also in conformity with the RBI regulations. The said
investments were also filed before the ROC in terms of Form No.8 BEN-2
and the same is approved and acknowledged by the ROC.
7.2. The allegation against the petitioners herein is that they have
frequently changed their registered address, annual returns were not
filed, the petitioners-accused Nos.5 and 6 have certified incorporation
form, including an application for allotment for DIN number and induced
the general public by giving instant loans for huge interest. The frequent
change of addresses was due to expansion, as there was increase in
number of employees. Thereafter, in the year 2020, due to sudden onset
of COVID-19, the business activities of the accused Companies had
taken a severe setback. Therefore, they have shifted their offices to
co-working spaces, which are also referred to as virtual work spaces.
However, change of addresses was done after filing Form INC-22, duly
intimating the ROC about the same. Hence, the petitioners-Companies
have followed the procedure prescribed under law, while shifting their
5
registered office addresses. If really there was an ill-motive in changing
the addresses, there would be no obligation on the part of the petitioners-
accused Nos.1 and 3-Companies to comply with the mandatory
requirements. The said address change documents/Form INC-22 were
certified and uploaded by petitioners-accused Nos.5 and 6, who are the
Chartered Accountants. There is no embargo for a Company to change
its office registered address at any point of time so far as the same is
intimated to the ROC.
7.3. The irregular audits for the years 2019-20 and 2020-21 was due to
the freezement of accounts by the Police authorities, on account of
registration of crime vide Crime No.1134 of 2020 against accused No.8,
being the Director of petitioner-accused No.3-Company and others, on
the complaint lodged by one R.Venkat Mourya. After completion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken
cognizance as C.C.No.66 of 2021. Owing to registration of the said
crime, the accounts of the Companies were frozen and returns could not
be filed. However, as both the parties have compromised the said case,
the accused therein were acquitted. Without taking into consideration of
the said fact, the Police have filed the present charge sheet.
7.4. The involvement of the petitioners-accused Nos.5 and 6, who are
the Chartered Accountants looking into the affairs of the petitioners-
6
accused Nos.1 and 3-Companies was limited to facilitate the
incorporation of the Companies and conducting physical verification of
the addresses for correspondence provided by the Company. They are
authorized to upload incorporation/address change documents on ROC
website. They have nothing to do with the affairs and functioning of the
Companies and merely being professionals carrying out their
professional obligations were falsely implicated in the case.
7.5. Against the petitioner-accused No.6, disciplinary proceedings were
initiated by the Disciplinary Directorate, Institute of Chartered Accountant
of India. Pursuant to an inquiry, the Disciplinary Directorate found that the
petitioner-accused No.6 is not guilty of the professional misconduct.
There is no nexus between the petitioners-Companies and Chinese
Companies and sufficient material was not produced by the prosecution
to prove the same. The investigation conducted by the Police could not
identify any of the victims who have been cheated by the petitioners
herein.
7.6. According to Section 212 of the Act, Serious Fraud Investigation
Office (SFIO) is the concerned for investigating into the Company’s
affairs. Initially, the SFIO conducts investigation and submits a report to
the Central Government, on the basis of which, prosecution can be
initiated against the accused. In the present case, without following such
7
procedure, the de facto complainant has straightaway lodged the police
complaint.
7.7. The accused No.10 is the Director of accused No.2-Company.
Accused No.2-Company is an entirely distinct Company which does not
have any connection with the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3-
Companies. There is no nexus between petitioners-accused Nos.1 and
3-Companies and accused No.2-Company. During the course of
investigation also, no nexus is established between petitioners-accused
Nos.1 and 3-Companies and accused No.2-Company, inspite of
examination of several witnesses.
7.8. The de facto complainant is the Registrar of Companies, which
overseas and regulates the functioning of Companies and as such the
question of inducing the de facto complainant to part with any property by
the accused does not arise at all. In order to prove the allegations
levelled against the petitioners, there is no crucial witness, except the
de facto complainant. Not even a single document was either produced
by the prosecution or de facto complainant. There is no dishonest
intention on the part of the petitioners herein to cheat or cause wrongful
loss to the general public and there is no specific allegation against the
petitioners that they have criminally conspired with each other to commit
8
an illegal act, hence, the ingredients of Section 420 r/w. 120-B of IPC are
not made out.
7.9. In support of their contention, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners relied on the judgment of State of Haryana and others v.
CH.Bhajan Lal and others 1, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
as follows:
The following categories of cases can be stated by way of
illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or
the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be
exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused;
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code;
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused;
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without1
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
9an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code;
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
7.10. They further relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
A.M.Mohan v. the State represented by SHO and another 2 and drawn
attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.13 and 20, wherein, it is held as
follows:
“13. It could thus be seen that for attracting the provision of
Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the
ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person
cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the
property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable
security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being
converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting
the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the
FIR/complaint discloses:
(i) the deception of any person;
(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver
any property to any person; and
(iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the
inducement.
2
2024 INSC 233
10
20. The dishonest inducement is the sine qua non to
attract the provisions of Sections 415 and 420 of IPC. In our
considered view, the same is totally lacking qua the present
appellant. In that view of the matter, we find that continuation of
the criminal proceedings against the present appellant would be
nothing else but amount to abuse of process of law resulting in
miscarriage of justice.”
7.11. They also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Dinesh Kumar Mathur v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another 3,
wherein, it is held that in order to constitute the offence of criminal
conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons to do an illegal act
is must.
7.12. Relying on the said judgments, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
8. On the other hand, Mr. V.T.Kalyan, learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing for unofficial respondent has contended that
serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners herein. The
accused Nos.2 and 10 are absconding and investigation against them is
pending. The Chinese nationals, who were indirectly involved in the
commission of offence, are not at all made as accused by the Police. He
further submits that the de facto complainant has lodged the present
complaint against the accused for the offences under Sections 427 and
447 of the Act, however, investigation was conducted by the Police with
3
2025 INSC 16
11
regard to other offences. Faulty investigation cannot lead to quash the
proceedings/acquittal of the accused, especially when the investigation
against accused Nos.2 and 10 is pending. He further submits that all the
allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are
subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the
proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
9. Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State, submits that the Police addressed letters, dated
01.02.2022 and 27.12.2022 to the de facto complainant calling upon to
furnish certain information/documents for the purpose of investigation.
Since the de facto complainant has not responded, the Police have filed
charge sheet before the trial Court after lapse of more than two years i.e.,
03.12.2024.
10. For proper adjudication of the matter, Section 212 of the Act, is
extracted hereunder:
212. Investigation into affairs of Company by Serious Fraud
Investigation Office.–
(1)Without prejudice to the provisions of section 210, where the
Central Government is of the opinion, that it is necessary to
investigate into the affairs of a company by the Serious Fraud
Investigation Office–(a)on receipt of a report of the Registrar or
inspector under section 208;(b)on intimation of a special
resolution passed by a company that its affairs are required to
be investigated;(c)in the public interest; or(d)on request from
12any Department of the Central Government or a State
Government, the Central Government may, by order, assign the
investigation into the affairs of the said company to the Serious
Fraud Investigation Office and its Director, may designate such
number of inspectors, as he may consider necessary for the
purpose of such investigation.(2)Where any case has been
assigned by the Central Government to the Serious Fraud
Investigation Office for investigation under this Act, no other
investigating agency of Central Government or any State
Government shall proceed with investigation in such case in
respect of any offence under this Act and in case any such
investigation has already been initiated, it shall not be
proceeded further with and the concerned agency shall transfer
the relevant documents and records in respect of such offences
under this Act to Serious Fraud Investigation Office.(3)Where
the investigation into the affairs of a company has been
assigned by the Central Government to Serious Fraud
Investigation Office, it shall conduct the investigation in the
manner and follow the procedure provided in this Chapter; and
submit its report to the Central Government within such period
as may be specified in the order.(4)The Director, Serious Fraud
Investigation Office shall cause the affairs of the company to be
investigated by an Investigating Officer who shall have the
power of the inspector under section 217.(5)The company and
its officers and employees, who are or have been in
employment of the company shall be responsible to provide all
information, explanation, documents and assistance to the
Investigating Officer as he may require for conduct of the
investigation.(6)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), offence covered under
section 447 of this Act shall be cognizable and no person
accused of any offence under those sections shall be released
on bail or on his own bond unless–(i)the Public Prosecutor has
been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such
release; and(ii)where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and
that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail:
Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years
or is a woman or is sick or infirm, may be released on bail, if the
Special Court so directs: Provided further that the Special Court
shall not take cognizance of any offence referred to this
subsection except upon a complaint in writing made by–(i)the
Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office; or(ii)any officer of
13the Central Government authorised, by a general or special
order in writing in this behalf by that Government.(7)The
limitation on granting of bail specified in sub-section (6) is in
addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being
in force on granting of bail.(8)If the Director, Additional Director
or Assistant Director of Serious Fraud Investigation Office
authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general
or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession
reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in
writing) that any person has been guilty of any offence
punishable under sections referred to in sub-section (6), he may
arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of
the grounds for such arrest.(9)The Director, Additional Director
or Assistant Director of Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall,
immediately after arrest of such person under sub-section (8),
forward a copy of the order, along with the material in his
possession, referred to in that sub-section, to the Serious Fraud
Investigation Office in a sealed envelope, in such manner as
may be prescribed and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office
shall keep such order and material for such period as may be
prescribed.(10)Every person arrested under sub-section (8)
shall within twenty-four hours, be taken to a Judicial Magistrate
or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having
jurisdiction: Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall
exclude the time necessary for the journey from the place of
arrest to the Magistrate’s court.(11)The Central Government if
so directs, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall submit
an interim report to the Central Government.(12)On completion
of the investigation, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall
submit the investigation report to the Central
Government.(13)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act
or in any other law for the time being in force, a copy of the
investigation report may be obtained by any person concerned
by making an application in this regard to the court.(14)On
receipt of the investigation report, the Central Government may,
after examination of the report (and after taking such legal
advice, as it may think fit), direct the Serious Fraud Investigation
Office to initiate prosecution against the company and its
officers or employees, who are or have been in employment of
the company or any other person directly or indirectly
connected with the affairs of the company.(15)Notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time
being in force, the investigation report filed with the Special
14Court for framing of charges shall be deemed to be a report
filed by a police officer under section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).(16)Notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act, any investigation or other action
taken or initiated by Serious Fraud Investigation Office under
the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) shall
continue to be proceeded with under that Act as if this Act had
not been passed.(17)(a)In case Serious Fraud Investigation
Office has been investigating any offence under this Act, any
other investigating agency, State Government, police authority,
income-tax authorities having any information or documents in
respect of such offence shall provide all such information or
documents available with it to the Serious Fraud Investigation
Office;(b)The Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall share any
information or documents available with it, with any
investigating agency, State Government, police authority or
income-tax authorities, which may be relevant or useful for such
investigating agency, State Government, police authority or
income-tax authorities in respect of any offence or matter being
investigated or examined by it under any other law.
11. Under Section 206 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short, the Act’),
the ROC, based on the information received by him, seek for
explanation, call for production of document and conduct enquiry. If the
Registrar is satisfied on the basis of information available with him or
furnished to him or on a representation made to him by any person that
the business of the Company is being carried out not in compliance with
the provisions of the Act, he can proceed with enquiry. If the enquiry
conducted by the Registrar discloses material for further investigation,
he, under Section 210 of the Act, can report to the Central Government
to conduct investigation into the affairs of the Company. If the Central
Government considers the allegations as true and considering the gravity
15
of the offence that the matter was fit to be investigated by the SFIO,
directs the matter to be investigated by the SFIO, under Section 212 of
the Act. The Investigating Officers who were having better investigation
skills in forensic auditing, corporate affairs and capital market would
conduct investigation. The Registrar of Companies is a competent
person to call for the records, conduct an enquiry and to arrive at an
opinion. If there is any material, he would submit a report to the
Government for investigation by SFIO. If SFIO is able to collect material
sufficient to prosecute, then it would file charge sheet after taking
necessary sanctions from the Central Government. The condition
prescribed under Section 212(6) of the Act is a safeguard against
frivolous false complaints.
12. Under Section 210 of the Act, the Registrar of Companies can
report to the Central Government to conduct investigation into the affairs
of the Company. If the Central Government considers the allegations as
true and considering the gravity of the offence that the matter was fit to
be investigated by the SFIO, directs the matter to be investigated by the
SFIO, under Section 212 of the Act. After completion of investigation,
SFIO submits investigation report to the Central Government. On receipt
of investigation report, the Central Government may, after examination of
the report, direct SFIO to initiate prosecution against the Company and
16
its officers or employees, who are or have been in employment of the
Company or any other person directly or indirectly connected with the
affairs of the Company. However, in the present case, without following
such procedure, the de facto complainant has straightaway lodged the
present complaint, contrary to the procedure contemplated under law. If
the de facto complainant is aggrieved, he should have resorted to take all
necessary steps by following the procedure as contemplated under the
Act.
13. The main allegation against the petitioners herein is that in
connivance with Chinese nationals, they were involved in the micro
instant loan app scam to defraud the innocent victims. The de facto
complainant also alleges that a Chinese national indirectly holds 99.9%
in petitioner-accused No.3-Company. Having gone through the record, it
is evident that one Particle Technology Private Limited, a registered
Singaporean Company holds shares in petitioner-accused No.3-
Company, however, such investment was made in accordance with law
by filing Form No.8 and duly intimating to the ROC. Merely because a
Chinese official is associated with Particle Technology Private Limited, it
cannot lead to an assumption that the petitioner-accused No.3-Company
is involved in the commission of offence, in the absence of any sufficient
material being produced by the prosecution or the de facto complainant
17
and nothing was elicited even during the course of investigation. Since
from the date of registration of crime i.e., 31.01.2022 to the date of filing
charge sheet i.e., 03.12.2024, even a single victim has not been
identified by the prosecution. There is no averment in the charge sheet
as to the involvement of the petitioners herein in any suspicious
transaction, much less in the Chinese loan app scam. Hence, there is no
nexus between the petitioners herein and Chinese Companies. The
investigation conducted by the Police could not elicit that the persons,
whom the petitioners have cheated. Though there is an allegation with
regard to frequent change of addresses, as seen from the record, it is
clearly evident that the same was done after complying with the
procedure i.e., filing of Form INC-22, duly informing to the ROC. Hence,
it cannot be found fault with.
14. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the unofficial
respondent has strongly opposed for quashing the proceedings against
the petitioners herein, on the ground that accused Nos.2 and 10 are
absconding and investigation against them is pending. Having gone
through the record, it is apparent that nothing was produced by the
prosecution to show that there is nexus between the petitioners-accused
Nos.1 and 3-Companies and accused No.2-Company. Even during the
course of investigation also, nothing was elicited to prove that there is
18
any nexus between the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3-Companies and
accused No.2-Company. In the absence of any such material, the mere
fact that investigation against accused Nos.2 and 10 is pending cannot
be a valid ground to continue the criminal proceedings against the
petitioners herein.
15. A perusal of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses i.e., LW2/ Nicola
Anthony, LW4/Y.Satyanarayana Rao and LW5/G.Sunil Reddy would
disclose that they have entered into lease agreements/Membership
Agreement with petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 Companies. As the said
documents were found to be genuine during the course of investigation,
the Investigating Officer had filed charge sheet deleting Sections 465 and
468 of IPC and Section 66-D of the I.T. Act. Such deletion was not
challenged by the de facto complainant. Since the Investigating Officer
himself has found that the said documents are genuine, the allegation
against the petitioners herein that they are functioning in an unlawful
manner cannot be sustained.
16. Further, on a perusal of the record, Crime No.1134 of 2020 was
registered against the petitioner-accused No.8, being the Director of
petitioner-accused No.3-Company, on the complaint lodged by one
R.Venkat Mourya, who is the victim. However, in the said crime, both the
19
parties have entered into compromise and the accused therein were
acquitted. The victim himself has compromised the matter.
17. As seen from the record, the petitioners-accused Nos.5 and 6 are
the Chartered Accountants of petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 1
Companies respectively. The allegation against the petitioners-accused
Nos.5 and 6 is that they have uploaded incorporation/address change
documents on ROC website. It is to be noted that when the change in
office address was done in conformity with the procedure, the petitioners-
accused Nos.5 and 6 have performed their duties as a part of carrying
out their professional obligations and the same is in accordance with law,
it cannot be said that the petitioners herein have involved in the
commission of offence and cheated the victims. Furthermore, in the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner-accused No.6,
after due enquiry, the disciplinary authority has concluded that he was
found not guilty of the professional misconduct. In the said background,
the petitioner-accused No.6 cannot be held liable. Since the petitioner-
accused No.5 also stands on the same footing of petitioner-accused
No.6, he cannot be also made liable.
18. Apart from that, to prove the offence of cheating under Section 420
of IPC, there must be dishonest intention on the part of the accused to
cheat the de facto complainant from the inception and there has to be
20
entrustment of property. Section 120-B of IPC deals with criminal
conspiracy. In the instant case, on a perusal of the allegations made in
the FIR or charge sheet, even if they are taken on face value, no
substantial and specific allegations have been levelled against the
petitioners herein and the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused. Since the ingredients of offence under Section
415 of IPC are not made out, the offence under Section 420 of IPC is
liable to be quashed and to prove the offence of criminal conspiracy, as
there is no material to show that there is meeting of minds of two or more
persons to do an illegal, offence under Section 120-B of IPC is also not
made out.
19. For the foregoing discussion and in view of the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above, this Court
is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioners herein amounts to sheer abuse of process of the
law and the same are liable to be quashed.
20. Accordingly, all the Criminal Petitions are allowed, quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 in
C.C.No.2925 of 2025 on the file of the learned XII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally.
21
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 30.04.2025
rev