Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Chava Venugopal vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+ CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4960 OF 2025
% 06.08.2025
Between:
1. CHAVA VENUGOPAL, S/O. CH PRAKASH RAO MALE, AGED 51
YEARS R/O. VILLA NO. 1, PLOT NO. 1, APARNA ORCHIDS,
IZZATH NAGAR, KOTHAGUDA, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA STATE - 500 084
2. SONIA SACHDEVA, FEMALE, AGED 52 YEARS R/O. VILLA NO.
1, PLOT NO. 1, APARNA ORCHIDS, IZZATH NAGAR,
KOTHAGUDA, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE -
500 084
3. PALAK SACHDEVA, FEMALE, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O. VILLA NO.
1, PLOT NO. 1, APARNA ORCHIDS, IZZATH NAGAR,
KOTHAGUDA, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE -
500 084
4. CHAVA USHA RANI, FEMALE, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O. VILLA NO.
1, PLOT NO. 1, APARNA ORCHIDS, IZZATH NAGAR,
KOTHAGUDA, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE -
500 084
5. CHAVA RAJYA LAKSHMI, FEMALE, AGED 42 YEARS R/O. SK-4
6TH FLAT, BLOCK NO. 4, SHRI RAM PANORAMA HILLS,
YENDADA, VISAKHAPATNAM ANDHRA PRADESH - 530 045
6. GAUTAM SANAN, MALE, AGED 50 YEARS R/O. S-492, 2ND AND
3RD FLOOR GREATER KAILASH, SOUTH DELHI DELHI - NO 048
7. NEETU SANAN, FEMALE, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O. S-492, 2ND
3RD FLOOR GREATER KAILASH, SOUTH DELHI DELHI - NO 048
.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI,
THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATAMATA PS,
VIJAYAWADA CITY
2. DR BELLAM SUNEEL, S/O. B. VENKAYYA MALE, AGED 52
YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 41, 3RD CROSS ROAD, BESIDE STELLA
COLLEGE, KP NAGAR, VIJAYAWAD
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. POSANI AKASH
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
//2//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
The Court made the following:
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2021 (14) SCC 626
2. 2024 INSC. 196
3. 2012 (5) SCC 661
4. CRLP.3004 of 2011
5. 2022 SCC Online AP2177
6. (2015) 4 SCC 609
7. 1981 (3) SCC 34
8. 2024 (10) SCC 690
This Court made the following :
//3//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
+ CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1600 OF 2024
% 06.08.2025
Between:
1. CHAVA VENUGOPAL, S/O. CH PRAKASH RAO MALE, AGED 51
YEARS R/O. VILLA NO. 1, PLOT NO. 1, APARNA ORCHIDS,
IZZATH NAGAR, KOTHAGUDA, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA STATE - 500 084
2. SONIA SACHDEVA, FEMALE, AGED 52 YEARS R/O. VILLA NO.
1, PLOT NO. 1, APARNA ORCHIDS, IZZATH NAGAR,
KOTHAGUDA, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE -
500 084
3. PALAK SACHDEVA, FEMALE, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O. VILLA NO.
1, PLOT NO. 1, APARNA ORCHIDS, IZZATH NAGAR,
KOTHAGUDA, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE -
500 084
4. CHAVA USHA RANI, FEMALE, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O. VILLA NO.
1, PLOT NO. 1, APARNA ORCHIDS, IZZATH NAGAR,
KOTHAGUDA, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE -
500 084
5. CHAVA RAJYA LAKSHMI, FEMALE, AGED 42 YEARS R/O. SK-4
6TH FLAT, BLOCK NO. 4, SHRI RAM PANORAMA HILLS,
YENDADA, VISAKHAPATNAM ANDHRA PRADESH - 530 045
6. GAUTAM SANAN, MALE, AGED 50 YEARS R/O. S-492, 2ND AND
3RD FLOOR GREATER KAILASH, SOUTH DELHI DELHI - NO 048
7. NEETU SANAN, FEMALE, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O. S-492, 2ND
3RD FLOOR GREATER KAILASH, SOUTH DELHI DELHI - NO 048
.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI,
THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATAMATA PS,
VIJAYAWADA CITY
2. DR BELLAM SUNEEL, S/O. B. VENKAYYA MALE, AGED 52
YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 41, 3RD CROSS ROAD, BESIDE STELLA
COLLEGE, KP NAGAR, VIJAYAWAD
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 06.08.2025
//4//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the order?
Yes/No
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
//5//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
APHC010120692024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3457]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1600/2024
Between:
1. CHAVA VENUGOPAL, S/O. CH PRAKASH RAO MALE, AGED 51
YEARS R/O. VILLA NO. 1, PLOT NO. 1, APARNA ORCHIDS,
IZZATH NAGAR, KOTHAGUDA, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA STATE - 500 084
2. SONIA SACHDEVA, FEMALE, AGED 52 YEARS R/O. VILLA NO.
1, PLOT NO. 1, APARNA ORCHIDS, IZZATH NAGAR,
KOTHAGUDA, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE -
500 084
3. PALAK SACHDEVA, FEMALE, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O. VILLA NO.
1, PLOT NO. 1, APARNA ORCHIDS, IZZATH NAGAR,
KOTHAGUDA, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE -
500 084
4. CHAVA USHA RANI, FEMALE, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O. VILLA NO.
1, PLOT NO. 1, APARNA ORCHIDS, IZZATH NAGAR,
KOTHAGUDA, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE -
500 084
5. CHAVA RAJYA LAKSHMI, FEMALE, AGED 42 YEARS R/O. SK-4
6TH FLAT, BLOCK NO. 4, SHRI RAM PANORAMA HILLS,
YENDADA, VISAKHAPATNAM ANDHRA PRADESH - 530 045
6. GAUTAM SANAN, MALE, AGED 50 YEARS R/O. S-492, 2ND AND
3RD FLOOR GREATER KAILASH, SOUTH DELHI DELHI - NO 048
7. NEETU SANAN, FEMALE, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O. S-492, 2ND
3RD FLOOR GREATER KAILASH, SOUTH DELHI DELHI - NO 048
.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI,
THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATAMATA PS,
VIJAYAWADA CITY
2. DR BELLAM SUNEEL, S/O. B. VENKAYYA MALE, AGED 52
YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 41, 3RD CROSS ROAD, BESIDE STELLA
COLLEGE, KP NAGAR, VIJAYAWAD
//6//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds
of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to QUASH all the
proceedings inter-alia pertaining to theFIR No. 719/2023 and C.C. No.
156/2024 on the file of Hon'ble Court of IV Addl Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Vijayawada,impose exemplary cost on both Respondents in
favour of Petitioners for their abuse and defraud of statutes and system
and to pass such
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that
in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal
Petition,the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to DISPENSE the
filing of Certified Copy of Charge sheet in C.C. No. 156/2024 on the file of
Hon'ble Court of IV Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada or to
pass such
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that
in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal
Petition,the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to STAY all
further proceedings including dispensation of personal appearance of all
the Petitioners herein, in C.C. No. 156/2024 on the file of Hon'ble Court of
IV Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada pending disposal of the
present Criminal Petition, or to pass such
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. POSANI AKASH
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
//7//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1600 of 2024
ORDER :
1. The petitioners are seeking quash of CC.No.156 of 2024 on the
file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
The petitioners are facing trial for alleged offences under
Sections 420, 406, 506 read with 120-B of IPC. The petitioners
are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 7. On the strength of the
complaint filed by the 2nd respondent the police have registered a
crime and completed investigation and filed a charge sheet.
2. Sri.Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are alleged to have
committed the offences by entering into memorandum of
understanding dated 29.10.2011 with the 2nd respondent through
their company Geomax Mines and Minerals Private Limited
(GMMPL).
3. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners approached the
2nd respondent and proposed to get allotted certain Bauxite
Mines in Jharkhand State and that the 2nd respondent can
generate good profit by operating those mines. It is also alleged
in the complaint that when the 2nd respondent refused the offer of
the petitioners, the 2nd respondent was requested to invest an
//8//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
amount of Rs.2,95,00,000/- as investment and that the mines
would be allotted on the name of the 2 nd respondent, which
would be operated by the petitioners through their known
sources. On such projections, the 2nd respondent transferred an
amount of Rs.2,95,00,000/- on various dates to the account of
Geomax Mines and Minerals Private Limited.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioners are no way connected
with the company and there is no allegation in the complaint as
to how each of the accused can be alleged to have committed
the offences under Sections 420, 406, 506 read with 120-B of
IPC. It is submitted that without assigning the role of the accused
in commission of the said offence, the complaint as filed and the
charge sheet as prepared and filed would have to be quashed.
5. It is also submitted that the event of transfer of amounts
admittedly took place in the year 2011 and the complaint is filed
in the year 2023. The agreement and arrangement between the
Geomax Mines and Minerals Private Limited (herein after
referred as “GMMPL”) is purely a commercial agreement and the
2nd respondent was to invest an amount of Rs.9.5 Crores and the
share of profit of the GMMPL and the 2nd respondent was agreed
at 50:50 ratio. Thereafter, on 27.04.2016 another MOU was
entered between the GMMPL and 2nd respondent and MOU
//9//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
dated 29.11.2011 was revoked. It is also submitted that another
MOU dated 10.03.2017 was entered between GMMPL and 2 nd
respondent and it was agreed that the share of the 2 nd
respondent would be 16.8% as he had invested only Rs.2.3
crores.
6. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent has filed a false
complaint while roping in the petitioners who are neither
connected with the transaction nor were party to the
Memorandum of Understandings. All the MOUs were signed by
the 1st petitioner on behalf of the company GMMPL.
7. It is also submitted that the amounts which were transferred by
the 2nd respondent were transferred to the account of the
GMMPL and none of the amounts were transferred to any of the
petitioners’ accounts. As such, the petitioners cannot be accused
of committing the alleged offences. It is also submitted that the
GMMPL is not arraigned as an accused and the vicarious liability
if any of the GMMPL cannot be passed on to the Officers of
GMMPL.
8. The learned senior counsel further submits that the 1st petitioner
is the Founder Director from the beginning. The 2 nd petitioner
was the Director from 02.05.2014 to 06.03.2020. The 3rd
petitioner was the Director from 02.05.2014 to 20.02.2020. The
//10//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
4th petitioner was the Director from 21.07.2010 to 20.09.2010.
The 5th petitioner was never a Director at any point of time. The
petitioners 6 and 7 were Directors during 12.07.2017 to
15.03.2018.
9. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that mere
breach of contract cannot amount to cheating and that the
complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. The learned senior
counsel places reliance on Randheer Singh Vs. State of UP1,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Courts must ensure the
criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment
or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive
pressurize the accused. On the facts of any case, if the FIR or
charge sheet does not disclose a criminal offence, the same
deserves to be quashed. The learned senior counsel places
reliance on Naresh Kumar and another Vs. State of
Karnataka2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court
must not hesitate in quashing criminal proceedings which are
essentially civil in nature and when the dispute between the
parties relates to a breach of contract, the same would not give
rise to the offence of cheating. The learned senior counsel
further places reliance on Anitha Hada Vs. Godfather Tours
1 2021 (14) SCC 626
2 2024 INSC. 196
//11//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
and Travels Pvt.Ltd.3, B.R.Naidu and another Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh4, Ghansham Lal Agarwal Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that
vicarious liability of the Company cannot be passed on to the
Officers of the Company without arraigning the Company as an
accused. When the offences are allegedly committed by the
Company a criminal complaint cannot be maintained without
arraigning as an accused.
10. Sri.Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel appearing for
the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioners have approached
this Court without filing a discharge petition and that an effective
and alternative remedy of filing a discharge petition was not
invoked by the petitioners and straight away they have
approached this Court by filing a quash petition. It is also
submitted that the case has so far not come up for enquiry
before the trial Court. As such, it is premature to approach this
Court and seek quash of the criminal case. It is submitted that
specific allegations are made out against the accused and these
allegations cannot be simply brushed aside on technicality and
that the matter would require consideration on merits by the trial
Court.
3 2012 (5) SCC 661
4 CRLP.3004 of 2011
5 2022 SCC Online AP2177
//12//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
11. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and the learned senior
counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the material on record.
12. The Memorandum of Understanding is entered by GMMPL with
the 2nd respondent. An amount of Rs.2,95,00,000/- was
transferred to the account of GMMPL on various dates. Thus,
there is a contractual obligation established between the
company GMMPL and the 2nd respondent.
13. In order to attribute the offences to the petitioners, the company
GMMPL would have to be arraigned as co-accused. In the
matter of Sunil Bharati Mittal Vs. CBI6, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court dealt with the Circumstances when Director/Person in
charge of the affairs of the company can also be prosecuted,
when the company is an accused person. It was held that, no
doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through
its officers, directors, managing director, chairman etc. If such a
company commits an offence involving mensrea, it would
normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act
on behalf of the company. It would be more so, when the criminal
act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same time, it is the
6 (2015) 4 SCC 609
//13//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no
vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so.
43. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the
commission of an offence on behalf of a company
can be made accused, along with the company, if
there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled
with criminal intent. Second situation in which he can
be implicated is in those cases where the statutory
regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability,
by specifically incorporating such a provision. When
the company is the offender, vicarious liability of the
Directors cannot be imputed automatically, in the
absence of any statutory provision to this effect.
14. On the facts of this case, the Company GMMPL is not arraigned
as a co-accused, that apart petitioner No.2 to 7 were never
Directors during the relevant period time when the 2nd
respondent is alleged to have invested the amounts in the year
2011. It is also pertinent to mention that the charge sheet is
equally silent on the role of the petitioners individually or
collectively in committing any of the alleged offences. Except for
blanket statement against the accused that they deceived the 2 nd
respondent no details are mentioned as to when and in what
manner and how each of the petitioners can be held responsible
or guilty for the alleged offences.
15. It is also trite to mention that the complaint is hopelessly barred
by limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State
//14//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
of Punjab Vs. Swaran Singh7, dealt with an issue relating to
offences allegedly committed under Section 408 and 406 of IPC.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that on the facts of that case
bar of limitation contained in Section 468 (2) (c) of IPC would
apply. On the facts of the present case also, the investment
made by the 2nd respondent to the account of the company
GMMPL was in the year 2011 and a complaint came to the filed
in the year 2023. The complaint has to be considered as
hopelessly barred by limitation on the face of it.
16. The criminal petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that
the company GMMPL is not arraigned as co-accused and
criminal liability cannot be fastened to the petitioners for the acts
of the company. The petition also deserves consideration on the
ground that non-compliance of the contractual obligations by the
company GMMPL or its officers cannot give rise to a cause of
action for filing a complaint alleging offences under Section 420,
406 and 506 of IPC. That apart, there is no role assigned to each
of the petitioners as to how they are individually responsible for
commission of any of the alleged offences or even collectively
responsible for commission of the alleged offences. Charging
them for offence under Section 120-B of IPC would not ipso-facto
7 1981 (3) SCC 34
//15//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
make the petitioners vicariously liable for the alleged offences
committed by the company GMMPL.
17. At any rate, the averments of the complaint would reveal that
commercial transactions and disputes relating to the same are
given a criminal hue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race
Club (1940) Ltd and others Vs. State of U.P and another8,
exhaustively held as to what would constitute criminal breach of
trust and cheating. At para 30 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
as follows ;
30. The distinction between mere breach of contract and
the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a
fine one. In case of cheating, the intention of the accused
at the time of inducement should be looked into which
may be judged by a subsequent conduct, but for this, the
subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of
contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for
cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is
shown right from the beginning of the transaction i.e. the
time when the offence is said to have been committed.
Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the
offence. Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the
property must have been entrusted to the accused or he
must have dominion over it. The property in respect of
which the offence of breach of trust has been committed
must be either the property of some person other than
the accused or the beneficial interest in or ownership’ of
it must be of some other person. The accused must hold
that property on trust of such other person. Although the
offence, i.e. the offence of breach of trust and cheating
involve dishonest intention, yet they are mutually
exclusive and different in basic concept. There is a
distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating.
For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time
of making a false or misleading representation i.e., since
8
2024 (10) SCC 690
//16//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of
entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach
of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the
property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same.
Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently
or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to
deliver any property. In such a situation, both the
offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.
18. On the facts of this case, the averments of the complaint or the
charge sheet cannot imply offences under Section 406 of IPC. It
is a case of a commercial transaction wherein the 2 nd respondent
invested in the business and such disputes arose on account of
the business activity.
19. On these grounds, the criminal petition is allowed and
accordingly CC.No.156 of 2024 on the file of IV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada is hereby quashed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated 06.08.2025
KGM
//17//
CRLP.No.1600 of 2024
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1600 OF 2024
Dated 06.08.2025
KGM