Anil Joseph Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 3 July, 2025

Telangana High Court

Anil Joseph Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 3 July, 2025

       THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.6344 of 2025


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the

petitioner/accused No.4 seeking to quash the proceedings

against him in CC.No.14149 of 2019 on the file of the III

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad, for

the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,

477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC‘).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent

No.3/de facto complainant lodged a complaint on

26.11.2018 before the Banjara Hills Police Station that

there exists a Master Services Agreement dated 01.04.2017

with Epiq e Discovery Solutions Inc., Document

Technologies, incorporated under the laws of USA and that

the said Agreement was in subsistence till 31.02.2019.

Since 01.08.2012 Srikanth Chintalapati/accused No.1 was

working as Chief Operating Officer in Aeries Technology

Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad branch, and he also

worked for the company of respondent No.3 till 31.08.2018

and then abruptly left the company without sending any
2
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.6344 / 2025

official communication and has also appointed Vijay

Kumar Kalapala/accused No.2 as Accounts and

Procurement Manager and later, even he left the company

by sending a resignation letter dated 30.09.2018 which

was not accepted by the respondent No.3. In the complaint

contents it was alleged that accused persons committed

several irregularities in the company by misappropriating

funds of the company that were meant for procurement,

hiring manpower, transport, catering orders and security

contracts of the company. During the internal audit and

during the investigation done by the Chairman, it was

found that the petitioner/accused No.4 and accused No.1

colluded with the vendors and purchases were over

charged.

3. It was stated in the complaint that three main IT

vendors namely Techmine Solutions, Prime Asset Source

Pvt. Ltd., and Digital Waves International Private Limited

had a common contact person and the aggregate purchase

of the company from the three vendors was Rs.75.00 lakhs

per quarter. The accused No.2 and accused No.1 caused

wrongful loss of Rs.4.50 crores over a period of three years

and the reason for the same was the quotations that were
3
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.6344 / 2025

invalid and overpriced. Further, the company lacked

competence or local standing to supply such equipment.

The said three companies did not have any previous

experience or credentials in supplying IT equipment.

4. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police

investigated the matter and on completion of due

investigation filed the charge sheet whereunder, the

petitioner was arrayed as accused No.4 for the

offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 477-A of

IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri B.Balaji, learned counsel for

petitioner/accused No.4, and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy,

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for

respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State. No representation on

behalf of respondent No.3/de facto complainant.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the

petitioner had no role to play in identifying and finalizing

suppliers or authorizing payments. He contended that the

respondent No.3 has deliberately attempted to malign the

petitioner and stifle his career. He asserted that the
4
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.6344 / 2025

proceedings initiated against accused No.1 who was the CEO

against whom primary allegations were leveled, are itself

quashed by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2023 in

Crl.P.No.775 of 2020. In addition, he averred that this Court

vide order dated 05.06.2024 in Crl.P.No.10162 of 2023

quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused No.2

as well. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the Criminal

Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor submitted that the allegations leveled in the

complaint against the petitioner/accused No.4 are serious

and only after due investigation, the Police filed charge sheet

against the petitioner arraying him as accused No.4 for the

offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 477-A of IPC.,

as such, prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and

on going through the material placed on record, it is noted

that it is the specific allegation of respondent No.3 that

several deceitful and fraudulent acts were committed by

the petitioner/accused No.4 along with accused No.1,

resulting in huge loss to the company. Further, the
5
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.6344 / 2025

allegations leveled against the petitioner/accused No.4 and

the allegations leveled against the accused No.1 and

accused No.2, are of similar nature and the proceedings

initiated against them are already quashed by this Court.

9. That apart, it is noted that except sating that the

petitioner/accused No.4 has committed several illegalities

in the company of respondent No.3, no evidence is

produced by neither the respondent No.3, nor the Police, to

prove that the petitioner/accused No.4 has committed

illegal acts which would result to attracting penal

consequences for the offences as alleged.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

this case, this Court is of the considered view that the

proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.4

are liable to be quashed.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and

the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4

inCC.No.14149 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad, for the
6
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.6344 / 2025

alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,

477-A of IPC, are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

also stand closed.

_______________
K. SUJANA, J

Date: 03.07.2025
SAI