Headnote
AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed
The petitioner, accused No.1 and director of M/s Dhruthi Infra Projects Limited, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.11868 of 2021 before the XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complaint arose from allegations that the petitioner and co-directors obtained a hand loan of Rs.14,20,00,000/- from respondent No.2 between May 2015 and April 2017, failed to repay, subsequently executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.02.2020, issued post-dated cheques totalling Rs.11,00,00,000/- which were returned with the endorsement 'account blocked', and failed to respond to statutory notice.
The petitioner contended that the allegations were purely civil in nature relating to recovery of money, that no dishonest intention from inception was established, and that cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC amounted to double jeopardy given that cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were already pending before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, for the same transactions. He relied upon several Supreme Court decisions to urge that continuation of criminal proceedings was an abuse of the process of law.
Respondent No.2 contended that there was a dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner from the very inception, that the MoU and post-dated cheques were issued with the deliberate purpose of inducing withdrawal of earlier cases, and that the account was intentionally blocked to avoid payment, thereby satisfying the ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC. The matter was heard on submissions of counsel for both sides and the Investigating Officer's final report was noted to have specifically implicated the petitioner.
Catchwords:
quashing of criminal proceedings
Section 482 CrPC
cheating
Section 420 IPC
dishonest intention
hand loan
Memorandum of Understanding
post-dated cheques
account blocked
double jeopardy
Section 300 CrPC
Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
civil dispute
abuse of process
© LegalFirms.in — Headnote is proprietary. Raw judgment text is in the public domain
per Section 52(1)(p) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Full Judgment Text
[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Karinki Krishna Kanth vs State Of Telangana And Another on 18 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.5672 OF 2022
% Dated 18.11.2025
# Karinki Krishna Kanth S/o.K. Nageshwara Rao
Aged: about 40 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.Flat No.312, Teja Block,
My Home Navadeep Apartments,
Madhapur, Hyderabad.
....Petitioner4
VERSUS
$ State of Telangana,
Represented by its Public Prosecutor
High Court, Telangana and another
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr.G. Veera Babu
^ Counsel for Resp
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools.
For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
From ₹167/month.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.