APHC010376972026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] THURSDAY, THE 20th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6135/2026 Between: 1. KALLEM UPENDER REDDY, S/O VENKATAREDDY, OCC BUSINESS FLAT.NO 3-9/7, R/O SATYANARAYANAPURAM, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM DISTRICT, TELANGANA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI, THROUGH SHO URAVAKONDA POLICE STATION, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT 2. PYAPILI NARESH, ,S/O VENKATESHULU,AGE 38 YE ARS, OCCU AGRICULTURE,R/O KONAPURAM VILLAGE, URAVAKONDA MANDAL,ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT-515110 ...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 Cour the above-named Petitioner beg to file the above Criminal Petition in this Hon ble Court under Sec.528 BNSS to quash the proceedings in FIR, No. 88/2026, dated 22.05.2026 on the file of Uravakonda Police Station, Ananthapuram District, registered for the offences under section 318 4 of BNS. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 2 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6135 of 2026 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 to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of FIR vide CRIME, No. 88/2026, dated 22.05.2026 on the file of Uravakonda Police Station, Ananthapuram District, before this Hon‟ble Court and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6135 of 2026 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6135 OF 2026 ORDER: This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the proceedings in Crime No.88 of 2026, dated 22.5.2026 of Uravakonda Police Station, Anantapuram District. 2. Case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner has received notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS sent by the SHO, Uravakonda Police Station and the allegations mentioned in the report are all false, he has no connection with the respondent No.2, he has not received any amounts from the respondent No.2, he neither promised respondent No.2 to give franchise nor received any amounts as alleged by the respondent No.2. Without conducting proper preliminary enquiry, the Station House Officer, Uravakonda Police Station, registered report of the respondent No.2 as a case in Crime No.88 of 2026 of the offences under 528 of BNSS. Immediately after receiving Section 35(3) notice, the petitioner has got issued reply notice to the Station House Officer through his advocate by denying all the allegations levelled in the complaint. The respondent has to prove his case by producing documentary evidence and without verifying any documents, the crime is registered. When there is no documentary evidence as alleged by the respondent No.2, it cannot be presumed that the offence of cheating was committed by the petitioner. So there is no cheating as alleged by the respondent No.2. Assuming for the sake of arguments, amounts are paid to the petitioner also, even as per the version of respondent No.2, one Harish made payments to the petitioner but not respondent No.2 and as such, respondent No.2 has no locus standi to give complaint. The said Harish obtained blank cheques and promissory notes from the petitioner in the said 4 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6135 of 2026 transaction and most of the payments were already cleared off by the petitioner and that respondent No.2 has no nexus and relevancy in this regard. Respondent No.2 is threatening the petitioner to file false cases by using forged cheques and promissory notes. Petitioner has already filed petition in I.P.No.12 of 2026 and it is pending on the file of First Additional Civil Judges Court, Senior Division, Khammam and in that petition, respondent No.2 is shown as respondent No.10 and having knowledge about the said petition, respondent No.2 gave false report to the SHO, Uravakonda Police Station. The said police station has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. No incident is taken place, no e-bike showroom has been proposed to establish and no amount is paid by the respondent to the petitioner and as such, no cheating is occurred. There is no prima facie case against the petitioner for attracting the offence under Section 318 (4) of BNS and the police not followed the procedure laid down in BNSS to register the complaint, and continuation of the complaint is nothing but abuse the process of law. 3. Case of the prosecution is thus: Respondent No.2, who is resident of Konapuram Village, Uravakonda Mandal set the criminal law into motion by giving report dated 22.5.2026 alleging that he came to know through one Gopal that the petitioner would extend finance to open U&V electrical bike showroom and accordingly, he had contacted the petitioner over phone and on that, petitioner informed to the respondent No.2 that in case of payment of Rs.15,00,000/- by the respondent No.2, he would assist the respondent No.2 to open U&V electrical bike showroom and in addition to that, he would pay Rs.60,000/- towards interest, provide two employees to work in the shop of respondent No.2 by paying salary of Rs.20,000/- each and by saying so, he had shared his account details with the respondent No.2. Further, having believed the words of petitioner, respondent No.2 initially paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- through the said Gopal through the phone pay number of petitioner and thereafter, on 5 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6135 of 2026 30.01.2025, 03.02.2025, 10.02.2025, respondent No.2 paid amounts of Rs.97,000/-, Rs.1,95,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/- i.e. total of Rs.7,07,000/- through the account of his brother Harish and after receiving the said amount, petitioner took a room near bus stand of Uravakonda, paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards advance and agreed to pay rent of Rs.25,000/- per month. Further, petitioner promised to send stock in the month of March, 2025 and directed the respondent No.2 to get ready the building so as to open the showroom, but the petitioner had not sent any stock. Since phone of the petitioner is switched off, respondent No.2, his brother and friends, went to the office of petitioner situated at Malkajgiri, Hyderabad and questioned about opening franchise or giving permission to open franchise at Uravakonda and then, petitioner replied in the negative and he also denied of repayment of the amounts received by him. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner initially would argue that respondent No.2 is utter stranger to the petitioner, the petitioner neither cheated the respondent No.2 nor received any amounts, there is no cause of action to give report by the respondent No.2 and only to get wrongful gain, he has given report. Further, without there being any documentary proof, the Station House Officer, Uravakonda Police Station, registered a false report given by the respondent No.2 and as such, it needs to be quashed. 6. Further, petitioner had already filed insolvency petition in I.P.No.12 of 2026 and the same is pending and in which respondent No.2 herein is shown as respondent No.10 and as such, he has to work out his remedies in that case but not by giving report. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at least a limited order of restraining the police not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner may be passed so as to protect interest of the petitioner. 6 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6135 of 2026 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that immediately after registration of First Information Report, notice under Section 35(3) is sent to the petitioner and for which, he had given reply with false averments and the crime is at very initial stage, material witnesses have to be examined and also investigation is going on to collect material documents to substantiate the version of respondent No.2 and further, upon perusing the complaint, ingredients of Section 318 sub-section 4 are clearly attracting against the petitioner and as such, this petition is liable to dismissed. 8. Report of the respondent No.2 is registered of the offence under section 318 (4) of BNS and as per the said Section, whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. To sum up the contents of report given by the respondent No.2, one Gopal informed to the respondent No.2 about the business of petitioner and thereafter, petitioner contacted respondent No.2 over phone and asked him to pay rupees Rs.15,00,000/- so as to give franchise to open U&V electrical bike showroom and further, he also informed to the respondent No.2 that he would pay Rs.60,000/- per month towards interest and provide two employees by paying Rs.20,000/- each towards their salary and by saying so, he had shared his bank account number to the respondent No.2 and thereafter, respondent No.2 had paid Rs.7,07,000/- through the said Gopal and through the account of his brother Harish and after receiving the said amounts and having agreed to take rental premises, petitioner failed to give franchise to the respondent No.2 and deceived him even by not paying any amount to him. 7 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6135 of 2026 9. Having pleaded that he had no acquaintance with the respondent No.2, it is mentioned in the petition that the respondent has no locus standi to give report as the amounts are paid by one Harish and further, the said Harish received blank cheques and promissory notes from him and he had cleared off almost all the amounts to the said Harish, respondent No.2 is threatening him to file false cases by using forged cheques and promissory notes. It is his further version that he had also filed an insolvency petition in I.P.No.12 of 2026 and in which, he had shown respondent No.2 as respondent No.10. So the petitioner came up with two contradictory statements, i.e., firstly, he had no acquaintance with the respondent No.2 and secondly, he had shown respondent No.2 as respondent No.10 in the insolvency petition filed by him, that too, before giving report by the respondent No.2. So the version of petitioner is appears to be far away from truth. Further, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the SHO, Uravakonda Police Station has no jurisdiction to register the report of respondent No.2 as no offence has been taken place at Uravakonda cannot be taken into consideration on the ground that as per the version of respondent No.2, he has transferred amounts from Uravakonda so as to obtain franchise and open showroom at Uravakonda. 10. In this regard, it is to be noted that it is well settled that for the purpose of exercising power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se and it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. It is also well settled that if the allegations made in the FIR, taken on the face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offense, the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such FIR should be quashed. Further, the power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too, in the rarest of rare cases and that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry 8 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6135 of 2026 as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice as held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bajanlal and Others.1 Further, Hon‟ble Apex Court has enunciated seven cardinal principles and they are reproduced as follows: “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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) 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 without an 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 1 1992 Supplement 1 SCC 335 9 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6135 of 2026 ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further would argue that the matter is of the civil nature and the petitioner had already filed an insolvency petition in IP No.12 of 2026 and the same is pending on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge Court (Senior Division) and as such, criminal prosecution shall not be launched against the petitioner. The said argument also cannot be taken into consideration. As seen from the record, especially report and first information report, as per the version of respondent No.2, petitioner, having promised respondent No.2 to give franchise to open U&V electrical bike shop at Uravakonda and also having received Rs.7,07,000/-, failed to issue franchise and thereby deceived him. 12. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a direction may be given to the investigating officer/respondent No.1 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. 13. The said argument also cannot be taken into consideration in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others.2 In this case while formulating guidelines for quashing of First Information Report, Hon‟ble Apex Court held that an order of not to arrest and/or „no coercive steps‟ either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final 2 (2021) 19 SCC 401 10 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6135 of 2026 report/charge sheet is filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall not be passed while dismissing/dispose of the quash petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and/or under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 14. Admittedly, respondent No.1 has already been issued notice under Section 35(3) of BNS and it is his bounden duty to proceed further in accordance with law. Having given thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case and the principle in State of Haryana and Others (supra), this Court is of the considered view that prima facie case is made out to attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 318(4) of BNS against the petitioner and as such, at this stage, the proceedings in Crime No.88 of 2026 shall not be quashed and accordingly, declined to allow the petition. 15. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J 20.08.2026 Vns