Telangana High Court
Pogula Haritha vs The State Of Telangana on 24 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.757 of 2025
% Dated 24.06.2025
# Pogula Haritha W/o. Naveen Kumar,
Aged: 40 years, Occ: Employee,
R/o.6-24, Kothakonda, Bhimadevarapalli Mandal,
Hanamkonda District
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana
Hyderabad, Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings
Hyderabad and another.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. K. Sai Sri Harsha
^ Counsel for Respondents :Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon (R.1)
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.757 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to,
as ‘BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.NI. No.49 of
2024 on the file of the VIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Medchal at Athevelly.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of the criminal petition briefly stated
are that respondent No.2/de facto filed complaint under Section
200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein it is averred
that he is having cordial relationship with the husband of the
petitioner, namely, Pogula Naveen Kumar, since more than two
decades. The petitioner and her husband approached him with a
business proposal i.e., to engage into the manufacturing and sale of
various chemicals, pharmaceuticals and botanical products. The
petitioner and her husband registered a company under the name
and style of ‘Acquire Labs Private Limited’ on 11.10.2019. In the
said company, the petitioner is one of the Directors, who holds
cheque power and he is second Director and one Mr. Katta Durga
Reddy, who is his brother-in-law, is also third Director.
Subsequent to establishing of the above said Company, the
3
petitioner compelled him to adjust the substantial amount i.e.,
more than Rs.1 Crore on multiple instances by selling his hard
earned properties and through several other sources, believing that
the said funds would only be exclusively utilized by the petitioner
only to fortify the company. After receiving the above said amount,
the petitioner and her husband have turned up and started
showing their true colors by postponing one pretext or the other,
when he requested the petitioner and her husband to submit all the
accounts/statements with regard to the turnover of the company.
In spite of the same, the petitioner has not furnishing the
statements of 2021-2022.
2.1. It is further averred in the complaint that he obtained the
statements through the available sources and there after he came
to know that all the funds facilitated by him were mis-appropriated
by the petitioner and her husband and they diverted the above said
amounts in to their personal accounts. At that stage, he filed a
complaint at Alwal police Station and the same was registered as
Crime No.791 of 2022 on 18.11.2022 for the offences under
Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the
IPC‘) and the same is pending.
4
2.2. While things stood thus, the petitioner and her husband
approached him on multiple occasions with a prompt assurance
that they would refund all the funds facilitated by him towards the
company. The said commitment was made by entering into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 13.04.2023 between
him and the petitioner and her husband and they agreed to pay an
amount of Rs.1 Crore within a period of six months, wherein one
Mr. Gunda Laxmi Raajan S/o.Narayana stood as a surety holder
and the petitioner had issued three (3) cheques in his favour.
However, the petitioner has not paid the above said amount as
agreed by her. At that stage, he presented the cheques issued by
the petitoner in his bank on 17.01.2024 and the said cheques were
returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, he
got issued the statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short, ‘the NI Act‘) through
his counsel on 15.02.2024 calling upon the petitioner to pay an
amount of Rs.1 Crore covered under the cheques. Even after
receiving the said notice, the petitioner has not paid the amount
nor issued any reply. Thereafter he filed complaint on 18.03.2024
after following the due procedure as contemplated under the
provisions of the NI Act and the same was taken cognizance and
5
numbered as STC.NI.No.49 of 2024 on the file of the VIII Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal at Athevelly.
3. Heard Mr. K. V. Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. Kothapalli Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused, Mr. G.V.S. Ganesh, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 – State.
Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
respondent No.2 filed the complaint without making the company
as party. Hence, the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is not
maintainable under law.
4.1. He further submitted that the petitioner has not received any
amount from respondent No.2 and respondent No.2, being a
Director of the Acquire Lab Private Limited Company, invested the
amount in the company only and the petitioner has not issued the
alleged cheques to discharge any debt. Hence, the ingredients
under Section 138 of the NI Act are not attracted. He also
submitted that even according to the MoU dated 13.04.2023, the
petitioner has agreed to pay the alleged amount of Rs.1 Crore after
alienating the property i.e., Ac.0.19 gts. of agricultural land, 136 sq.
6
yards of open plot and house bearing No.6023 situated at
Kothakonda Bheemadevarapally, Karimnagar, and if the petitioner
violated the terms and conditions of the MoU, respondent No.2 has
to take necessary steps seeking enforcement of MoU before the
competent Civil Court only. Hence, the complaint filed by
respondent No.2 is clear abuse of process of law.
4.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has filed the
complaint on 18.11.2024 before Alwal Police Station and the same
was registered as Crime No.791 of 2022 and in the said complaint,
respondent No.2 himself stated that the petitioner is due an
amount of Rs.42 lakhs only, whereas respondent No.2 filed the
present complaint i.e., C.C.No.49 of 2024 claiming an amount of
Rs.1 Crore. Hence, there is no enforceable debt in respect of Rs.1
Crore between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Respondent
No.2 filed the complaint with an intention to harass the petitioner
one way or the other. Hence, the complaint filed by respondent
No.2 is clear abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be
quashed.
Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the
petitioner is due an amount of Rs.1.20 Crores. At the instance of
7
the husband of the petitioner and others, the petitioner and
respondent No.2 have entered settlement and accordingly both
parties have entered MoU on 13.04.2023. In the said MoU, the
petitioner has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1 Crore instead of
Rs.1.20 Crores and the same was agreed by respondent No.2. The
petitioner has agreed to pay the above said amount on or before
14.10.2023 by alienating her ancestral property i.e., Ac.0.19 gts. of
agricultural land, 136 sq. yards of open plot and house bearing
No.6023 situated at Kothakonda Bheemadevarapally, Karimnagar,
and if any balance is due, she has agreed to pay the said amount
within a period of six months from thereafter. The petitioner herself
had issued three cheques to that extent. In the said MoU, it is
specifically mentioned that if the above said property was not
alienated within the stipulated time as mentioned above, the
petitioner has agreed to pay the entire amount to respondent No.2.
In the said MoU, the husband of the petitioner and other witnesses
were also signed.
5.1. He further submitted that after expire of time as mentioned in
the MoU, respondent No.2 made a request to pay the amount.
However, the petitioner failed to pay the said amount. At that
stage, respondent No.2 presented the cheques, which were issued
by the petitioner, in his bank and the said cheques were returned
8
with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, respondent
No.2 issued legal notice through his counsel to the petitioner. The
petitioner neither paid the amount nor given any reply. Hence,
respondent No.2 after following the due procedure as contemplated
under the provisions of the NI Act filed the complaint before the
competent Court.
5.2. He further submitted that the petitioner has issued cheques
in favour of respondent No.2 to discharge the legal enforceable debt
only, which were mentioned in MoU. Hence, the ingredients under
Section 138 of the NI Act are very much applicable, especially as
per Section 139 of the NIC Act presumption is in favour of
respondent No.2. The contentions/grounds raised by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner are purely disputed questions of
facts and the same have to be adjudicated by the trial Court during
the course of trial. The petitioner is not made out any case to
quash the proceedings in STC.NI.No.49 of 2024 and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
Analysis:
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available on
record, it reveals that the husband of the petitioner and respondent
9
No.2 are known to each other since longtime and the petitioner and
her husband have approached respondent No.2 with a business
proposal i.e., to engage into the manufacturing and sale of various
chemicals, pharmaceuticals and botanical products, and they
established a company under the name and style of ‘Acquire Labs
Private Limited’ on 11.10.2019, wherein the petitioner, respondent
No.2 and brother-in-law of respondent No.2 are the directors and
the petitioner holds cheque power and to run all the operations of
the company. In the complaint, it is stated that respondent No.2
has adjusted substantial amount of Rs.1 Crore to the petitioner for
the purpose of fortify the company. However, the petitioner has not
used the above said amount for the development of the company.
In spite of several demands, the petitioner has not furnished the
statement of accounts of the company. After securing the
statements of accounts, respondent No.2 came to know that the
petitioner had diverted entire amounts into her personal accounts
and mis-appropriated the said amount. At that stage, respondent
No.2 lodged a complaint before the Alwal Police Station against the
petitioner and the same was registered as Crime No.791 of 2022 for
the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. Even
according to the parties, the Investigating Officer after conducting
investigation filed charge sheet and the said case is pending.
10
7. The record further reveals that at the instance of husband of
the petitioner and others, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have
entered MoU on 13.04.2023. The recitals of MoU reveal that the
petitioner received an amount of Rs.1.20 Crores from respondent
No.2 and his brother-in-law, namely, Katta Durga Reddy
S/o.Janardhan Reddy, for the purpose of investment in the
company i.e., ‘Acquire Labs Private Limited’, Alwal. However, the
petitioner has not furnished the statement of accounts to them and
the petitioner had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1 Crore, instead
of Rs.1.20 Crore in favour of respondent No.2 on or before
14.10.2023. In the said MoU, it is further mentioned that the
petitioner has agreed to pay the above said amount by alienating
her properties, i.e., Ac.0.19 gts. of agricultural land, 136 sq. yards
of open plot and house bearing No.6023 situated at Kothakonda
Bheemadevarapally, Karimnagar, which were acquired through
ancestors, and if any balance amount is there, the petitioner had
agreed to pay the said amount within a period of six months from
thereafter. To that extent, the petitioner had issued three (3)
cheques bearing Nos.000001, 000031 and 000034 for an amount of
Rs.40 lakhs, Rs.30 lakhs and Rs.30 lakhs respectively on
20.10.2023, drawn on HDFC Bank, Nagarjuna Nagar Colony,
11
Kapra, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad. The above said cheques were also
mentioned in the MoU.
8. The recitals of MoU further reveals that in the event the
properties belongs to the petitioner mentioned in MoU is not sold,
there is responsibility on the part of the petitioner to pay the above
said amount of Rs.1 Crore within the stipulated period to
respondent No.2. The record further reveals that the petitioner has
not paid the said amount pursuant to the MoU. Respondent No.2
presented the above said cheques in his bank account, namely,
Axis Bank Limited, Quthbullapur on 17.01.2024 and the same were
returned on 18.01.2024 with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’.
It also reveals from the record that on 15.02.2024, respondent No.2
got issued legal notice through his counsel demanding the
petitioner to pay the amount covered under the cheques. After
receiving the notice, the petitioner has not paid the amount nor
issued any reply. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint on
18.03.20224 before the VIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Medchal at Athevelly, and the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance on 19.03.2024 and numbered as STC.NI.No.49 of 2024.
9. The main contentions raised by learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner are that respondent No.2 is one of the Directors of the
12
company and he invested the amount in the company and the
petitioner has not received the amount and there is no legally
enforceable debt between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and
the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are not applicable are
concerned, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have jointly entered
into MoU on 13.04.2024, wherein, the petitoner herself had agreed
to pay an amount of Rs.1 Crore in the place of Rs.1.20 Crores by
alienating her properties and even if the property of the petitioner is
not sold, the petitioner has agreed to pay the above said amount of
Rs.1 Crore to respondent No.2 in particular time. There is no
dispute in respect of issuance of the three (3) cheques by the
petitioner to respondent No.2. Whether the cheques were issued in
respect of legally enforceable debt or not are the disputed question
of fact and that has to be adjudicated during the course of trial.
10. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 without making the
company as party respondent/accused filed the complaint is not
maintainable under law is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner and
respondent No.2 have mutually entered MoU on 13.04.2023 and
the petitioner had issued three (3) cheques in her individual
capacity only, not in the name of the company. Whether the
complaint filed by respondent No.2 is maintainable in the absence
13
of making the company as party respondent/accused also can be
raised by the petitioner before the trial Court.
11. It is relevant to mention that Section 139 of the NI Act deals
with presumption in favour of holder ‘unless the contrary is proved’.
Once the complainant discharges the burden of proving that the
instrument was executed by the accused, the presumption under
Section 139 of the NI Act shifts the burden on the accused. In the
case on hand, respondent No.2 specifically pleaded that the
petitioner had issued three (3) cheques as security to discharge the
debt as agreed in the MoU, which was entered by both parties,
whereas the claim of the petitioner is that there is no legally
enforceable debt and the said three (3) cheques were not issued in
respect of discharge of the debt as mentioned in the MoU. These
aspects can be adjudicated during the course of trial.
12. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court does not find any merit in the case to quash the
proceedings in STC.NI.No.49 of 2025 on the file of the VIII
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal at Athevelly,
exercising the inherent powers conferred under Section 528 of the
BNSS.
14
13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. It is made
clear that the trial Court is directed to decide the STC.NI.No.49 of
2024 on merits basing on the evidence going to be adduced by both
the parties, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the
observations made in this order.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 24.06.2025
L.R. Copy to be marked
mar