IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD

CRL.M.C.NO._________OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. SARAT CHANDRA ROUTRAY …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM OF PARTIES

SARAT CHANDRA ROUTRAY

S/o LATE AINTHA ROUTRAY
R/o 361(A), PATRAPADA,
BHUBANESWAR- 751019, ORISSA …PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. STATE OF TELANAGANA
THOUGH STANDING COUNSEL
CHAMBER NO.________
HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD=_________________

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

POLICE STATION: CENTRAL CRIME STATION
HYDERABAD

3. MR. D. SURENDER CHAKRAVATHY

LATE D. RAVINDER
R/O 8-3-225/2
YADAGIRI NAGAR, YOUSUFGUDA, HYDERABAD …RESPONDENTS

PLACE:
DATE: HYDERABAD PETITIONER
THROUGH COUSNEL
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD

CRL.M.C.NO._________OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. SARAT CHANDRA ROUTRAY …PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

SEEKING QUASHING OF FIR NO. 92/2017, DATED 13.06.2017 UNDER
SECTION 420, 406, 506 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1) The Petitioner is a law abiding respectable citizen of the civil society. He

has an esteemed social status and enjoys a stellar reputation in the
business community.

2) The Petitioner is the Managing trustee of Orissa Education Trust (OET)

and Gurukula Foundation Trust. The Petitioner, representing above
mentioned both the trusts. Orissa Education Trust (OET) and Gurukula
Foundation Trust both are engaged in imparting education at
Bhuvneshwar-Odisha, to the students at large.

3) Respondent No.1 is the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad which is

responsible for the administration, providing safety, security and justice
and other affairs to the people of State of Telangana and Citizens of
India. Respondent No.1 is also responsible for maintaining law and
order in the State and to provide security and safety to the residents of
Hyderabad.
4) Respondent No.2 is the office of the High ranking official of Hyderabad
Police, responsible for detecting and checking any crime within its
jurisdiction. Respondent No.2 is also responsible for preserving the
safety, security of the residents of India and to maintain law and order.

5) Respondent No.3 is the Complainant in the FIR No. 92/2017 dated

13.06.2017, u/s 420, 406, 506 IPC, 1860, P.S. Central Crime Station,
Hyderabad. Respondent No.3 is the Proprietor of M/s Arunodaya
Construction.

6) That Respondent No.3 first, approached the local police i.e. PS: Jubilee
Hills but the concerned officer denied of initiating any action against the
Petitioner as at the prima facie, the concerned police official did not find
any merit in the complaint, therefore found that the matter is not fit to
register an FIR against the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Respondent No.3
approached the Additional Chief Magistrate through Complaint under
Section 200 r/w 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly,
FIR was registered by the Central Crime Station on 13.06.2017, bearing
no. 92/2017 u/s 420,406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. True copy of the
FIR No. 92/2017 dated 13.06.2017, is annexed herewith as Annexure 1.

7) The Respondent No.3 established his case on the basis of the following
documents:
i. Receipt dated 20.06.2015
ii. Receipt dated 25.02.2016, and
iii. Undertaking dated 16.02.2017, and
iv. The account statement of Current A/c No. 028405003804 of M/s
Arunodaya Construction, of ICICI Bank, Nayapalli-Bhuvneshwar-
Odisha.
True copy of the Receipt dated 20.06.2015 is annexed herewith as
Annexure 2. True copy of the Receipt dated 25.02.2016 is annexed
herewith as Annexure 3. True copy of the Undertaking dated
16.02.2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure 4 and True copy of the
bank statement of Current A/c No. 028405003804 of M/s Arunodaya
 Construction, produced by the Respondent No.3 is annexed herein as
Annexure 5.

8) That inspite of being a civil matter, criminal actions were instituted

against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was arrested by the ANC Team of
Hyderabad on 16.09.2017 from the school premise of the Petitioner.

9) It is important to state that after registering the FIR No. 092/2017, the
Police officials failed to serve any notice to the Petitioner and further
claimed in the case diary that the Petitioner was absconding from the
date of the registration of the FIR. Whereas, the Petitioner at the time of
his arrest was present in his school i.e. Doon International School with
his son and other colleagues, so an allegation that the Petitioner was
absconding is false, frivolous, manipulated and irrelevant.

10) That the Petitioner was produced before the Hon’ble S.D.J.M.
Bhubaneswar with a requisition to issue transit warrant against the
Petitioner (Accused) to produce him before the Hon’ble XII ACMM
Court, Hyderabad, which was duly granted to the police officials.
Accordingly, after obtaining the transit warrant, the Petitioner was
brought to the CCS, Hyderabad on 17.09.2017 and the Petitioner was
produced before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand on 18.09.2017.

11) Thereafter, the Petitioner was sent to police custody i.e. from
21.09.2017, 4:00pm to 22.09.2017, 4:00 pm.

12) Furthermore, the ANC Team of CCS Hyderabad stated that one day
period time is not enough to conduct search at his house at
Bhubneswar, and further sought six days judicial remand of the
Petitioner in order to conduct search at his house situated at
Bhubaneswar and other places. Accordingly, the Ld. Magistrate after
perusing the Remand Case Diary dated 18.09.2017 remanded the
Petitioner to Judicial Custody till 27.09.2017. Surprisingly, no
documents, any type of relevant material or any kind of recovery was
recovered from the Petitioner. True copy of the application moved by
 the concerned police official of ANC Team for police custody of the
Petitioner dated 22.09.2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure 6. It is a
matter of very serious concern of gross violation, misconduct and
misuse of the powers of the officials / authorities concerned. It is
absolute injustice in justice.

13) That an application under Section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code

was moved in the Hon’ble Court of CMM, Hyderabad, on behalf of the
Petitioner seeking bail of the Petitioner, however the Hon’ble Court vide
its order dated 26.09.2017 dismissed the petition. However, it is
pertinent to mention that during the Police custody of the Petitioner, no
search was conducted by the Police officials at his residence or any of
the premises concerned of both the Trusts. True copy of the bail
application dated 18.09.2017 and order of the Addl. CMM dated
26.09.2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure 7 (colly).

14) That the second bail application was filed in the Addl. Chief MM,
Hyderabad on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was enlarged on
bail vide order dated 04.10.2017 on execution of the personal bond for
Rs.25, 000/- with sureties of the like amount, with a condition to attend
before SHO on every Saturday and to surrender his passport. And the
petitioner made a perfect compliance of the order of Hon’ble Court.
True copy of the bail application dated 03.10.2017 and the order of the
Addl. CMM dated 04.10.2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure 8
(colly).

BRIEF FACTS:

15) The Petitioner is the Managing trustee of Orissa Education Trust

and Gurukula Foundation Trust. The Petitioner, representing these
trusts. And both the above mentioned trusts are engaged and imparting
the education to the students at large.
16) The following education institutions are run by the Petitioner
under the Orissa Education Trust and the Gurukula Foundation Trust:
ORISSA EDUCATION TRUST GURUKULA FOUNDATION
(OET)
 The Techno School  Gurukul Institute of
 Doon International Technology (GIT)
School  Gurukul College of Engineering
for Women (GCEW)
 Gurukul Engineering College
(GEC)

17) It is pertinent to mention that the Petitioner has a good moral

conduct, societal and has never been arrayed in any sort of legal matter.

18) That the schools and colleges well established under the trusts
have been duly recognized and certified from the concerned authorities.

19) That the Respondent No.3, also known as “Raja babu” came into
contact with the Petitioner in the year of 2005. Thereafter, the
Respondent No.3 informed the Petitioner that he is having his office at
House No. 29, The 12th Milestone, Tamando, Bhubneswar and is the
proprietor of M/s Arunodaya Construction. The Respondent No.3
further informed the Petitioner that he has good knowledge of
construction and has been in this business from a very long time.

20) Accordingly, the Respondent No.3 developed very friendly and

cordial relations with the Petitioner and his family and started visiting
the residential as well as the office premises of the Petitioner on a daily
basis.

21) The Respondent No.3 had become like a family member of the
Petitioner who at times stayed at the residence of the Petitioner. The
Petitioner has always been a person of good moral conduct and has
helped many people in obtaining employment through various means.
 The Petitioner has been engaged into social works, he has established
many temples in the state of Orissa and is highly respected by the
people working in the educational institutions of the trusts and by the
educational fraternity and society at large.

Construction work of The Techno School by Respondent No.3 (OET)

22) That after receiving dual certification and appropriate sanction

from the education fraternity in 2005, the Orissa Education Trust
established the Techno School. Thereafter, the Petitioner was looking
for a construction contractor for establishing the appropriate
infrastructure. That the Respondent No.3 was well aware of the
scenario, he therefore, induced/persuaded the Petitioner to allot him
the construction work. The Petitioner wanted a trustworthy person to
handle the construction work of The Techno School. That keeping in
consideration the relationship established with the Respondent No.3,
the Petitioner was happy to allocate the construction work to him.

23) That for the purpose of the construction work, an Agreement for
Construction dated 29.05.2006 was executed between the Orissa
Education Trust, represented by the Petitioner and M/s Arunodaya
Construction, represented by the Respondent No.3, for the construction
work to be done for the Techno School. It was duly stated in the
agreement that the construction work shall be completed by the
Respondent No.3 on or before 12.05.2007. True Copy of the Agreement
for Construction dated 29.05.2006 is annexed as Annexure 8.

24) It is pertinent to mention that the actions of the Respondent No.3

has always been mala-fide and cunning thought-process from the
beginning. That after scrutiny of the documents, it was recently noticed
that the Respondent No.3 executed the Agreement of Construction
dated 29.05.2006 as a Managing Director of M/s Arunodaya
Constructions, which in-fact is a Proprietor Firm, and the same was duly
stamped by him, in the capacity of the Managing Director.
25) The Respondent No.3 told the Petitioner that as and when funds
will be required for the construction work vis-à-vis the material, supply,
machinery, etc, the same to be released by the Petitioner. That the
Petitioner who had utmost trust and belief in the intentions of the
Respondent No.3, agreed to do the same.

26) Therefore, as and when funds in advance were demanded by the

Respondent No.3 either in his accounts or the accounts of his associates
i.e. the material supplier, the labor contractor and his other
colleagues/contractors, the funds were released by the Petitioner
through various accounts of the trust whenever the Respondent No.3
asked to do so.

27) That after handing over the construction work of the Techno
School, the Respondent No.3 informed the Petitioner that he requires
fund to begin the construction work and therefore first payment of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) was released by the Petitioner on
09.10.2006 through cheque bearing no. 828488 of Centurian Bank, in
favor of Arunodaya Construction.

28) That the Respondent No.3 would usually ask the Petitioner to
transfer/ transact the payments in various accounts for the payment to
material suppliers, labor suppliers/contractors and associates of
Respondent No.3.

29) That accordingly an approximately sum of Rs.10, 45, 98,306/-

(Rupees Ten Crores Forty-Five Lakhs ninety eight thousand three
hundred and six only) was paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent
No.3 and his associates, as and when demanded during the period
09.10.2006- 05.03.2010. That as and when funds were demanded by the
Respondent No.3, the same was duly paid by the Petitioner through
cheque, RTGS, NEFT or cash. That the Petitioner believed the assurances
and promises made by the Respondent No.3 and made the payments
whenever asked by the Respondent No.3. True copy of the summarized
 list of the payments made to the Respondent No.3 for the construction
work of The Techno School is annexed herewith as Annexure 9.

30) That the Petitioner in good faith transferred the amounts as and
when demanded by the Respondent on a belief that the payments were
being made for the construction work of the Techno School.

31) That for some time the construction work was going at a rapid
pace and the work was being carried out by the Respondent No.3.
However, after receiving the amount of Rs.10,45,98,306/- (Rupees ten
crores forty-five lakhs ninety eight thousand three hundred and six
only), the Respondent No.3, owing to some reason or the other kept on
delaying the construction work of The Techno School stating this
problem or that problem anyhow or other. That time and again
Respondent No.3 assured the Petitioner that the construction work is
going at a speedy rate and will be completed soon. The Petitioner again
believed the assurances made by the Respondent No.3 and did not
object after that.

Construction work of the colleges of The Gurukula Foundation by

Respondent No.3.

32) The Respondent No.3 had become an integral part of the family of
the Petitioner, who was more like a brother to the Petitioner. However,
the Respondent No.3 always had illicit motives with malafide intentions
and kept on trying to persuade and buttering the Petitioner for taking
his undue favour.

33) The construction work was required to be done in the colleges of

Gurukula Foundation. Respondent No.3 approached the Petitioner and
persuaded him to allot the whole construction of the colleges. That
since, the Respondent No.3 was already constructing the relevant
buildings of the Techno School, the work of construction of the colleges
of Gurukula Foundation was allotted to Respondent No.3.
 34) That the whole construction work of the colleges of the Gurukula
Foundation was allotted on the basis of trust and belief and therefore,
no agreement was executed for the same. Hence, there was an oral
agreement between the parties in the juncture of good faith rather blind
faith.

35) That the payments were made to the Respondent No.3 as they
were made for the Techno School. Accordingly as and when the
Respondent No.3 asked for money, the same was duly paid by the
Petitioner into the accounts of the Respondent No.3 or his associates.

36) The Respondent No.3, during the period of March 2007-August

2013 received a total sum of approximately Rs. 15 crores, by way of
RTGS, Cheque, cash and DD through various accounts of the trust, for
the purpose of infrastructural construction in the colleges of Gurukula
Foundation. True copy of the summarized list of the payments made to
the Respondent No.3 for the construction work of the colleges of the
Gurukula Foundation is annexed herewith as Annexure 10.

Construction work of the Doon International School by Respondent No.3.

37) The Orissa Education Trust obtained the franchisee of Doon

International School. That since Respondent No.3 was already carrying
out the construction work of the Techno School and the colleges of the
Gurukula Foundation, the Respondent No.3 offered to take on the
construction work of the Doon International School as well, to which the
Petitioner, representing the Orissa Education Trust agreed to.

38) Considering the payments made to the Respondent No.3 and the
assurances and beliefs made by the Respondent No.3, the Petitioner
believed that the construction work of all the school / institutes i.e. The
Techno School and the Doon International School of Orissa Education
 Trust and the colleges of Gurukula Foundation will be duly executed and
timely completed by the Respondent No.3.

39) That accordingly Respondent No.3 executed an Agreement of

Construction dated 20.08.2011 with respect to the Doon International
School, and after perusing the Agreement and making relevant changes,
the Petitioner signed the Agreement. True copy of the Agreement of
Construction dated 20.08.2011 is annexed herewith as Annexure 11.

40) Similarly, the payments were demanded by Respondent No.3 in

various accounts of his associates and the Petitioner made the payments
as and when demanded by him, so that the work can be completed at
the earliest.

41) Accordingly, as payments were made for the construction of the

Techno School and the colleges of the Gurukula Foundation, similarly, a
total payment of Rs. 18,98,03,000/-(Rupees Eighteen crores ninety
eight lacs and three thousand) was paid to the Respondent No.3 as and
when demanded during the period 19.08.2011- 22.02.2017, to his
accounts or the accounts of his associates, by the Petitioner through
various bank accounts by way of RTGS, NEFT, Cheque and cash. The
True copy of the summarized list of the payments made to the
Respondent No.3 for the construction work of the Doon International
School is annexed herewith as Annexure 12.

42) Therefore, the Respondent No.3 was handling the construction

work of both the schools i.e. The Techno School and the Doon
International School of Orissa Education Trust and the construction
work of the colleges of the Gurukula Foundation. Therefore, The
Respondent No.3 was in receipt of a total sum of Rs.44,55,74,306/-
(Rupees forty four crores fifty five lacs seventy four thousand three
hundred and six). The following amounts were paid to the Respondent
No.3, through various accounts of the trusts by Petitioner during the
following time period:
 PAYMENTS MADE TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3

TRUST SCHOOLS/COLLEGES TIME PERIOD AMOUNT PAID

Orissa Education Trust The Techno School October 2006- 10,45,98,306/-

March2010

Doon International August 2011- 18,98,03,000/-

School February2017

Gurukula Foundation March 2007-

All the 3 colleges August 2013 15,11,73,000/-

Total Rs.44,55,74,306

Appointment of Third-Party Consultants

43) That while the construction work of the colleges of Gurukula

Foundation was going on, the Respondent No.3 asked for more money
from the Petitioner. That since, the Petitioner had already advanced an
approximate sum of Rs.15 crores, the Petitioner in order to ascertain
the money spent on the construction work of the Techno School and the
colleges of the Gurukula Foundation appointed the third-party
consultants, as the amounts paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent
No.3 was in advance and no amount of money was returned by the
Respondent No.3 claiming that the money paid for the Techno School
and the Gurukula Foundation has been fully utilized.

44) However, the third-party consultants that was appointed by the

Petitioner informed the Petitioner that the Respondent No.3 had
completed the construction work of the Techno School for a total
amount of Rs. 89,098,306/-, i.e. an outstanding of Rs.1,55,00,000/- was
owed by the Respondent No.3. Further, the construction work of the
colleges of the Gurukula Foundation is incomplete and whatever work
has been completed, it has been done for an approximate sum of Rs.13
crores, whereas an advance sum of more than 15 crores was paid to the
Respondent No.3.
45) That the Petitioner informed the Respondent NO.3 about the
outstanding dues, to which the Respondent No.3 said that he shall
confirm the outstanding amount with his Accountant. Thereafter, the
Respondent No.3 after a span of 2-3 days asked the Petitioner to settle
the matter as they had cordial relations and Respondent No.3 was
carrying out all the construction work, to which the Petitioner agreed.

46) That the Parties settled the matter amicably and it was agreed
that the Respondent No.3 shall make a total payment of
Rs.2,60,00,000/- (Rupees two crores sixty lacs) to the Petitioner within
a span of 2 years and the Respondent No.3 further assured the
Petitioner that he shall complete the construction work of Gurukula
colleges in the remaining amount.

47) That accordingly the following cheques were issued by the

Respondent No.3 in favor of the Petitioner:
Cheque no. 887977, dated For an amount of Rs.50 lacs
12.06.2015
Cheque no. 887979, dated For an amount of Rs.50 lacs
17.06.2015
Cheque no. 878378, dated For an amount of Rs.50 lacs
20.06.2015
Cheque no. 878386, dated For an amount of Rs.45 lacs
04.08.2015
Cheque no. 888004, dated For an amount of Rs.5 lacs
28.09.2015
Cheque no. 878451, dated For an amount of Rs.5 lacs
26.02.2016

It is pertinent to mention that after the above-mentioned payments

were duly cleared and transferred. However, after the receipt of the last
cheque of Rs.5 lacs, dated 26.02.2016, the Respondent No.3 kept on
delaying the payment and informed the payment that he shall repay the
outstanding amout of Rs. 55 lacs at the earliest.

48) That the construction work of the Doon International School was
carried out simultaneously and the funds were received in advance as
and when demanded by the Respondent No.3. That an approximate
 amount of Rs.19 crores was paid to the Respondent No.3 for the
construction work to be carried out at the Doon International School.

Transaction Between The Petitioner And Mr. D. Pramod Chakravarthy

(Brother Of Respondent No.3)

49) That after the establishment of the Doon International School, the
Orissa Education Trust decided to approach the fraternity of the well-
established “Delhi Public School” for franchisee. That the plan of
obtaining franchisee was discussed by the Petitioner with the important
people of the trust, one of which was Respondent No.3. Upon hearing
this, the Respondent No.3 informed the Petitioner that his brother can
get the franchisee of DPS Society for the Orissa Education Trust as he
has good contacts with the DPS Society.

50) Simultaneously, Mr. D. Pramod Chakrvarthy (brother of

Respondent No.3) was introduced to the Petitioner by Respondent No.3,
who convinced the Petitioner that it is not difficult for him to obtain the
franchisee of “DPS Society”. Mr. D.Pramod Cahkravarthy further told the
Petitioner that he will have to spend money to obtain the franchisee as
DPS is a reputed group, to which the Petitioner agreed. Further, Mr. D.
Pramod Chakravarthy assured the Petitioner that he will obtain the
franchisee of DPS Society on behalf of the Orissa Education Trust and if
he fails to do so, he shall return the money spent on obtaining it.
Believing the promises and assurances made by Mr. D. Pramod
Chakravarthy in the presence of Respondent No.3, the Petitioner agreed
to assign the duty of obtaining franchisee of DPS School to the brother of
Respondent No.3.

51) That accordingly payments were made by the Petitioner into the
accounts of Mr. D.Pramod Chakravarthy as and when asked for, by way
of cash, cheque, NEFT/RTGS. That approximately a sum of
Rs.2,03,40,000/- (Rupees two crores three lacs and forty thousand) was
 paid to the brother of the Respondent No.3. The True copy of the
summarized list of the payments made to the brother of the Respondent
No.3 for obtaining the franchisee of the Delhi Public School is annexed
herewith as Annexure 13.

52) Thereafter, in the last week of February 2017, the Respondent

No.3 unexpectedly stopped the construction work and asked more
money from the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner this time, asked the
Respondent No.3 to show the constructed work completed by the
Respondent No.3, with calculation of constructed area and money paid
and value in terms of rupees in lieu of each construction. That
thereafter, the Respondent No.3 kept on delaying the work and stopped
coming at the site of the construction giving some excuse or the other.

53) It is pertinent to mention that Respondent No.3 was well aware of

all the transactions taking place between Mr. D.Pramod Chakravarthy
and the Petitioner regarding the DPS franchisee. That after receiving the
payment, both the brothers left the Bhubneswar city and fled to
Hyderabad.

54) That the Petitioner was astonished to witness such an act by the
Respondent No.3, as the Respondent No.3 was always treated like a
family member by the Petitioner and had received the advance amounts
of all the construction work.

55) The Petitioner, who was in a state of shock and dismay tried
contacting the Respondent No.3 to finish the work and his brother to
return the money that was advanced to him for obtaining the DPS
Franchisee, but all in vain as the Respondent No.3 and his brother had
left the Bhubneswar city completely leaving his Bhubneswar office and
removing all the machinery from the site.

56) The Respondent No.3 along-with his brother and other associates
have manipulated the facts of the case by introducing forged and
fabricated documents and has abused the process of law.
57) That after the Respondent No.3 had vanished completely from the
city of Bhubneswar, leaving the construction work in the middle and
taking away the money of the trust. The Petitioner again appointed third
party consultants in order to ascertain how much money was spent in
the construction of the Doon International School and how much work
was completed by the Respondent No.3, in the month of March.

58) That it was shocking to know by the consultants that the work
that was done by the Respondent No.3 and his team was only worth for
Rs. 12 crores, whereas the Petitioner had advanced to the Respondent
No.3 an approximate sum of more than 19 crores. The Petitioner who
was in a state of shock tried contacting the Respondent No.3, but all in
vain as Respondent No.3 kept on threatening the Petitioner of dire
consequences if the Petitioner asked for the money. The Petitioner kept
requesting the Respondent No.3 to either complete the construction
work or return the balance amount of Rs. 8,50,00,000/-(i.e. outstanding
amount of Gurukula Foundation-Rs. 1,50,00,000 + outstanding amount
of Rs. 7 crores of the Doon International School). The Petitioner further
asked the Respondent No.3 and his brother to make the payment of
Rs.2,03,40,000/- that was obtained by the brother of the Respondent
No.3, Mr. D. Pramod Chakravarthy for obtaining the franchisee of DPS
Society, which he failed to do so.

59) That the total amount owed cheated by the Respondent No.3, his
brother and his associates is Rs. 10,53,40,000/- (Rupees ten crores fifty-
three lacs and forty thousand).

60) That before the Petitioner could initiate any action against the
Respondent No.3, he was arrayed in the false and frivolous case of
cheating and threatening on the basis of some forged and frivolous
document produced by him. That the Petitioner is still in a state of shock
and dismay as to how the Respondent No.3 cheated, forged and
manipulated the whole case. The FIR bearing No.02/2017 is an act of
 the Respondent No.3 in order to escape the liability of returning the
money to the Petitioner.

61) That, till date the following works of the colleges of the Gurukula
Foundation and the Doon International School are pending:
i. Incomplete work of the Diploma Block Gurukul Institute of
Technology (GIT),
ii. Second floor and the third floor of the Gurukul Engineering
College,
iii. Fourth floor of the administrative block of the Doon International
School, and
iv. Third Floor of the Hostel Block of the Doon International School,
and
v. Fixtures and fittings of the colleges of Gurukula Foundation and
the Doon International School

62) That owing to the conduct of the Respondent No.3 by escaping

with the money of the trust and leaving the construction work in the
middle, AICTE cancelled the admission of students in the Diploma
Course of Gurukul Institute of Technology citing the reason that the
construction work was not completed on time. The Gurukula
Foundation has faced irreparable harm and damage to the reputation of
the college.

ALLEGATIONS LEVELLED IN FIR NO. 92/2017 AGAINST THE PETITIONER,

PS. CENTRAL CRIME STATION ARE UNTENABLE AND DEFICIENCY IN
INVESTIGATION BY THE POLICE OFFICIALS

63) The Petitioner has been charged under section 420, 406 and 506
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the basis of the following documents:
i. Receipt dated 20.06.2015,
ii. Receipt dated 25.02.2016 and
iii. Undertaking dated 16.02.2017
64) The whole complaint of the Respondent No.3 lies on the above-
mentioned documents which were never executed by the Petitioner.
The documents on which the Complainant is relying his whole case are
forged documents who at the very outset is illegal to be taken on record.

65) That there has been an irreparable loss faced by the Petitioner
owing to the dishonest and mala-fide intentions of the Respondent No.3
and the imprudent investigation by the police officials.

66) It is interesting to point out that after due scrutiny of the forged
Receipts dated 20.06.2015 and 25.02.2016 and the Undertaking dated
16.02.2017, the following lacunas have been pointed out, which the
police officials and the concerned Hon’ble Magistrate have failed to
notice/take into consideration:

i. The Orissa Education Trust (OET) is a registered trust and the

registered deed has been annexed for the perusal of this Hon’ble
Court. However, the letter heads used by the Respondent No.3
for making the alleged forged receipts dated 20.06.2015 and
25.02.2016 states the heading as “ODISHA EDUCATION
TRUST” instead of “ORISSA EDUCATION TRUST”. It is
interesting to state that the name of the state of “Orissa” was
changed by the Government of India to “Odisha”, however the
name of the state has nothing to do with the name of the trust,
which the Respondent No.3 did not realize at the time of making
the forged documents. The original letter-head used by the Orissa
Education Trust is annexed herewith as Annexure 14. The true
copy of the letter dated 28.11.2017 issued by the Indian Overseas
Bank and the Allahabad Bank stating that the “Orissa Education
Trust” is being operated in their bank is annexed as Annexure 15
(colly).

ii. Not only, the letter heads used are forged and fabricated but the
signatures marked on the above-mentioned receipts have been
duplicated and does not belong to that of the Petitioner.
 iii. The same forgery has been repeated in the Undertaking dated
16.02.2017 wherein the Petitioner has been stated to be the
trustee of “ODISHA EDUCATION TRUST”, whereas the stamp
affixed on the Undertaking is that of the “Orissa Education Trust”.

iv. The acts of forgery committed by the Respondent No.3 has been
very well-planned and executed. However, the Respondent No.3
did not realize the fact that the name of the state “Orissa” was
changed in the year of 2011 as “Odisha” but the change of the
name of the state has nothing to do with the name of the trust as it
was registered in 1999.

v. That not only the fraud has been played on the part of the
Respondent No.3 by forging the documents but the signatures
implicated on the forged documents have caused an irreparable
harm and loss not only to the Petitioner but to the reputation of
the trust, who is engaged in educating children at large. That the
devious and hideous act by the Respondent No.3 has had a huge
impact on the Petitioner in person and to the group of institutions
at large.

vi. The Police officials investigating the matter have failed to check
the authenticity of the documents presented by the Respondent
No.3 as the signatures made of the Receipts dated 20.06.2015 and
25.02.2016 does not match with the signatures of the
Undertaking. That a person with naked eyes would clearly
question the authenticity of the documents, which the Police
officials have failed to do so.

67) That not only the above mentioned documents are forged but the
Respondent No.3 have executed some other fabricated documents as
well, that are:
 i. A Letter issued by the Techno School in favor of M/s Arunodaya
Construction stating that the Respondent No.3 has successfully
completed the construction work of the Techno School by July,
2007. However, it is pertinent to mention that the payments with
respect to the construction work of the engineering college was
being made till 2010. It is shocking how mala-fide intentions were
of the Respondent No.3 when he got in touch with the Petitioner.
That the signatures affixed on the letter was never signed by the
Petitioner and is a fabricated document. Moreover, the stamp that
has been affixed on the letter is that of Chairman-Cum-Managing
Trustee of the “Techno School” instead of the “Orissa Education
Trust” as the school is established under the Orissa Education
Trust. The Police Investigation has failed to check the genuineness
of the documents presented by the Respondent No.3. True copy of
the Letter is annexed herewith as Annexure 16.

ii. Agreement of Construction dated 20.03.2017, alleged to be

executed between Orissa Education Trust and the Respondent
No.3. The agreement states the first party as “Orissa Education
Trust”, whereas the stamp has been affixed of “Gurukul
Foundation”, which in-fact is “GURUKULA”. True copy of the
Agreement of Construction dated 20.03.2017 is annexed herewith
as Annexure 17.

iii. A letter executed by the Gurukula Foundation, dated 14.01.2013

stating the completion of the construction work of Gurukul
Institute of Technology (GIT). The letter was never executed by
the Petitioner as the construction work was never completed.
Further, no agreement or letter has been executed between the
Petitioner and the Respondent No.3 vis-à-vis the construction
work of the colleges of the Gurukula Foundation. True copy of the
letter dated 14.01.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure 18.

iv. The alleged Agreement of Construction dated 16.07.2007,

executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.3. True
 copy of the Agreement of Construction dated 16.07.2007 is
annexed herewith as Annexure 19.

v. The alleged Settlement Deed dated 20.02.2017. True copy of the

Settlement deed/ Final Balance Statement dated 20.02.2017 is
annexed herewith as Annexure 20.

vi. The alleged Agreement dated 02.02.2013, executed between the

Orissa Education Trust under Doon International School and the
Respondent No.3. True copy of the Agreement dated 02.02.2013 is
annexed herewith as Annexure 21.

vii. The alleged letter dated 22.02.2015 executed by the Orissa

Education Trust in favor of the Respondent No.3, stating that all
the works of the Doon International School has been completed
by the Respondent No.3. True copy of the forged letter dated
22.02.2015 is annexed herewith as Annexure 22.

It is pertinent to mention that the above-mentioned documents of

clause 61 and 62 are false and fabricated at the very outset as the
Petitioner never executed any of the above-mentioned documents.
Furthermore, the police officials have failed to scrutinize the documents
properly as the stamp affixed or the name of the trust/colleges/school
does not match or mentioned wrongly. That at the prima facie, the
documents are forget and fabricated and requires due attention of this
Hon’ble Court. That by executing the above-mentioned false documents,
the Respondent No.3 alongwith his brother and fellow associates have
manipulated and abused the process of law.

68) That the Respondent No.3 had submitted the bank statement of
M/s Arunodaya Construction, bearing no. 028405003804, of ICICI Bank
for the period 01.04.2015- 30-06.2015, 01.10.2015- 31.12.2015 and
01.01.2016- 31.03.2016. It is noteworthy to state that the Respondent
No.3 in his complaint under section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code,
 before the Ld. Magistrate stated that the Petitioner sought financial
assistance from the Respondent No.3 as the Petitioner was in urgent
need of money, whereas as per the bank statement submitted by the
Respondent No.3, it can be seen that 4 crores has been paid by the
Petitioner to the Respondent No.3 or his associates. The Respondent
No.3 had abused the process of law with the help of some forged
documents executed by him.
The tabular representation has been stated herein-below for the perusal
of this Hon’ble Court:

AMOUNT DEPOSITED INTO THE ACCOUNT OF M/S ARUNODAYA

CONSTRUCTION

Period 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2015

09.06.2015 NEFT- Orissa Education Trust 1,50,00,000/-

17.06.2015 RTGS- Orissa Education Trust 1,00,00,000/-

19.06.2015 RTGS- Orissa Education Trust 50,00,000/-

Period 01.10.2015 to 31.12.2015

17.11.2015 RTGS- Orissa Education Trust 50,00,000/-

31.12.2015 RTGS- Orissa Education Trust 25,00,000/-

Period 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2016

25.02.2016 RTGS- Orissa Education Trust 25,00,000/-

TOTAL 4,00,00,000/-
(RUPEES FOUR CRORES)

69) That the police officials have erroneously carried out the
investigation in the present matter and arrested the Petitioner without
scrutinizing the documents provided by the Respondent No.3. The
Petitioner has been a culprit of an unfavorable investigation by the
police officials.
70) That the charge-sheet prepared by the officials is similar to that of
the complaint made by the Respondent No.3 in his Complaint before the
Magistrate. The Police officials have failed to carry out any investigation
and no new fact or evidence has been produced by them.

71) That the Respondent No.3 has manipulated and twisted the facts
and therefore created a false story by way of forged documents thereby
implicating the Petitioner in a false and frivolous case. Such an act on
the part of the Respondent No.3, his brother, Mr. D. Pramod
Chakravarthy and his associates, mainly Mr. Sunil Kumar (Accountant of
the Respondent No.3) and Mr. Aslam Gurukkal and the inefficiency of
the police officials landed the Petitioner in jail for a period of 17 days
thereby harming the reputation of the Petitioner and the schools and
colleges he represents. That the Petitioner has faced the mental agony
as he has never been arrayed in any sort of legal matter.

72) The material facts have not been taken into consideration by the
Police officials and the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate. The present matter
was grossly mis-handled by the police officials from the very beginning.
That the whole investigation is in question as the Charge-sheet filed by
the ANC Team raises some serious questions vis-à-vis genuineness and
the authenticity of the documents submitted by the Respondent No.3.
The whole investigation has been done keeping in consideration the
documents produced by the Respondent No.3 and the allegations made
by Respondent No.3. The whole investigation has been done keeping in
mind the story presented by the Respondent No.3. True certified copy of
the Chargesheet bearing no. 404/17 is annexed herewith as Annexure
23.

73) The Petitioner has been dishonestly and maliciously roped in the
FIR No. 092/2017 dated 13.06.2017 with the ulterior motive to extort
money and property from the Petitioner and further defaming the
reputation of the Petitioner and the reputation of the schools and
colleges the Petitioner represents.
 74) The Respondent No.3 was remanded on the judicial custody on
the ground that the police officials require time to investigate/search
the premises of the Petitioner and visit Bhubneswar for the same.
However, no search or visit was carried out by the police officials either
at the residence or the schools/ colleges of the Petitioner.

GROUNDS

THE ALLEGATIONS DO-NOT DISCLOSE AN OFFENCE OF CHEATING

A. That the money involved in the present matter is purely commercial in

nature, hence the presence of commercial transaction is overlooked by the
Police officials. Any offence arising of a commercial transaction is purely
civil in nature. Therefore, the Petitioner was wrongly booked under the
criminal code, for an alleged offence which is purely commercial in nature.

B. The Allegations made in the FIR No. 092/2017 dated 13.06.2017 do-not
disclose the offence of cheating which is defined in section 415 / 420 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

C. The offence of cheating requires the following:

(1) Deception of any person
(2) (a) Fraudulently or Dishonestly inducing that person
(i) to deliver any property to any person; or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do
or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind reputation or property.

D. The allegations made in the FIR No. 092/2017 dated 13.06.2017 do-not
disclose any offence of cheating, as there is no fraudulent or dishonest
inducement of the Respondent No.3 (complainant) by the Petitioner herein.
E. That the essential ingredient of the offence of cheating in stated in Section
415 of the IPC, and consists of fraudulently and dishonestly inducing a
person by deceiving him to deliver any property or to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Two
essential ingredients of offence would be (i) To make a false statement so
as to deceive any person and (ii) fraudulently and dishonestly inducing the
person to deliver any property or to do or omit to do something. It is
submitted that neither in the FIR nor in the extracts from the Complaint of
the Respondent No.3, there is any reference to any false representation or
inducement by the Petitioner. Hence, no case of cheating has been made
out even prima facie.

F. The Supreme Court in Hridaya Ranjan Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar
and Anr., clearly states:
“Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for
cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the
beginning of the transaction, that is, the time when the offence is said to have
been committed. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence.
To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his
mere failure to keep up promise subsequently, such a culpable intention right
at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise, cannot be presumed.”

That the present matter is purely civil in nature and the allegation stated
purely describe a civil dispute between the Parties and the FIR seems to
have been filed only with an intention to harass the Petitioner and extort
money from him. This is a pre-emptive move by the Respondent No.3 as the
Respondent No.3 has manipulated the facts with the help of producing the
forged documents. Copy of the judgment, Hridaya Ranjan Verma & Ors.
Vs. State of Bihar and Anr is annexed herewith as Annexure 24.

AN OFFENCE OF CHEATING AND CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST CANNOT

CO-EXIST SIMULTANEOUSLY
G. The Supreme Court in Hart Prasad Chamaria v. B.K. Surekha and
Others, 1973 (2) SCC 823 stated:
“The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of criminal
breach of trust and cheating are fine one. In case of cheating, it depends upon
the intention of the accused at the time of inducement, which may be judged
by a subsequent conduct but for this the subsequent conduct is not the sole
test but mere breach of contract which 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 his 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 after 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. But the
offence, i.e. the offence of breach of trust and cheating involve dishonest
intention but 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 entrustment. 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 practices fraudulent or dishonest to induce with another person to
deliver the property. In such situation, both the offences cannot coexist
simultaneously.”

That in the present matter, it is the Respondent No.3 who has had mala-fide
intentions from day one, which the Petitioner failed to notice. The
Respondent No.3 induced the Petitioner in obtaining the construction work
of both the trust and fled Bhubneswar as soon as the Respondent No.3 and
his brother received the full advance payment for their respective works,
without completing the work or informing the Petitioner. The Respondent
No.3 has misused the generosity of the Petitioner and did not fulfill the
assurances and promises made to the Petitioner.
 Copy of the judgment Hart Prasad Chamaria v. B.K. Surekha and Others,
1973 (2) SCC 823, is annexed herewith as Annexure 24.

OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION IS NOT MADE OUT

H. That from the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is apparent to

state that the Petitioner was intimidated of dire consequences whenever he
asked the Respondent No.3 for returning the money of the trust.

I. That no records/ evidence has been submitted by the Respondent No.3

which stated that the Petitioner threatened the Respondent No.3. Not only
the Respondent No.3, but also the Police officials have failed to establish as
to how the Petitioner has threatened the Respondent No.3. Hence the
offence of criminal intimidation is not made out against the Petitioner. That
the Petitioner has been booked under criminal intimidation merely on an
allegation made by the Respondent No.3.

75) The Petitioner herein crave leave of the Court to raise further
grounds as may be deemed fit.

76) It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner herein has joined

the investigation and has been co-operating in the investigation process.

77) The Petitioner herein has not filed any other petition assailing the
FIR No. 092/2017 dated 13.06.2017 U/S 406/ 420/ 506, IPC, 1860 P.S.
Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, before any Court.

78) The present petition has been made bonafide and in the interests
of justice.

PRAYER
 In the light of the afore-stated facts and circumstances it is humbly prayed
before the Hon’ble Court to:

a. Pass an order quashing the. FIR No. 092/2017 dated 13.06.2017, U/S 420/
406/ 506 IPC, 1860 P.S. Central Crime Station, Hyderabad against the
Petitioner;

b. Pass an order staying the criminal proceedings in FIR No. 092/2017 dated
13.06.2017, U/S 420/ 406/ 506 IPC, 1860 P.S. Central Crime Station,
Hyderabad against the Petitioner;

c. Pass an order directing the Respondents No.1 and No.2 to refrain from
taking any coercive steps against the Petition during the investigation of
FIR No. 092/2017 dated 13.06.2017, U/S 420/ 406/ 506 IPC, 1860 P.S.
Central Crime Station, Hyderabad against the Petitioner;

d. Pass any other order which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

PLACE: HYDERABAD

DATE: ____.02.2017 PETITIONER

Through Counsel

ADV. SUSHIL RAAJA & ASSOCIATES

VERIFICATION

It is hereby verified on _______ day of ________ 2017 that the contents of the
above petition between paragraphs ________________ are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.