1. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No.104 of 2025 of Economic Offence Wing Team-X, CCS, DD, Hyderabad (Central Crime Station, Hyderabad), registered for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) read with 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’) and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, ‘TPDFE Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case:

               2.1. Respondent No.2, a partner of M/s. Touchstone Enterprises, lodged a complaint, dated 13.08.2025, before the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, alleging that accused No.1, namely, Mrs. Maddipati Sandhya Rani, Proprietor of M/s. Sri Sai Ram Enterprises, engaged in the business of manufacturing school uniforms, industrial uniforms and corporate uniforms, was introduced to him in the year 2021 by Mr. Venkata Raju, a Chartered Accountant, who had been serving as the auditor of his company for the past 20 years and who also acted as the auditor for accused No.1. It is alleged that accused No.1 explained her business model and investment opportunities, stating that she had secured contracts with more than 400 schools and required liquid funds to execute uniform orders. She further represented that she had a fully equipped office, a four-storeyed building housing garment stitching machinery, a stitching team comprising more than 100 workers, and all the necessary infrastructure for carrying on the business. Through her presentation and representations, she projected that she was executing business transactions worth several crores. She also introduced accused No.2/Mr. Ramadas, Partner/Director of M/s. Sri Sai Ram Enterprises, and her husband, the petitioner/accused No.3, who were involved in the execution and management of the business.

               2.2. It is further alleged that during financial year 2021-2022, he was heavily invested in his own business and, therefore, did not show any interest in investing in the business of accused No.1. However, accused No.1 continued to frequently visit his office, maintained regular contact and requested him to recommend potential investors from his business network, while consistently portraying continuous growth in her business. Accused No.1 eventually convinced respondent No.2 to participate in her business on a profit-sharing basis by projecting substantial returns. Acting upon her assurances and representations, respondent No.2 and his company, M/s.Touchstone Enterprises invested a total amount of Rs.73 crores between March, 2024 and March, 2025 towards the execution of work orders/purchase orders purportedly issued by M/s.K12car Edu Mart, M/s.Nissi Garments, M/s.Vivekananda High School, M/s. Sri Sai Ram Enterprises, Glendale Academy, The Gaudium School, M/s.MS Educational and Welfare Trust and M/s.J-Nine Signature Wear LLP. It is alleged that accused No.1, for the purpose of execution of the said orders and procurement of materials, furnished the bank account particulars of various suppliers and instructed the accounts department of M/s. Touchstone Enterprises to transfer the requisite amounts to the accounts of M/s.Himalayan Foil Solutions Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Srika Enterprises, M/s.SR Textiles, M/s.Krishna Industries, M/s.Vrajman Enterprises, M/s.Sri Chakra Enterprises and M/s.PSR Traders. All investments were made through RTGS bank transfers, as per her guidance and instructions.

               2.3. It is further alleged that accused No.1 appeared to maintain proper statutory compliances, including payment of GST and TDS. All the invoices raised by the vendors and payments received from clients were managed by her office staff and communicated to him through WhatsApp. All fund transfers were effected strictly in accordance with her instructions. She managed all transactions between M/s.Touchstone Enterprises and the vendors as well as the clients. Along with her accountants, Mr. Siva and Mr. Vamsi, she was responsible for raising invoices and forwarding the same to him. However, despite repeated dealings, she allegedly never introduced him directly to any of the vendors or clients, citing mutual business arrangements and commercial confidentiality.

               2.4. It is further alleged that respondent No.2 and his company invested an aggregate amount approximately Rs.73 Crores. After receipt of the said investment, accused No.1 promised and assured that all outstanding invoices would be settled by the end of the financial year 2024-2025 and that profits would be paid. However, after March 2025, she started avoiding communication, whereupon he claims to have discovered that the work orders furnished by her were fabricated and that he had been cheated. It is alleged that the accused persons, acting in collusion, fraudulently obtained funds not only from him but also from several other lenders and investors by projecting a profit-sharing scheme and assuring proportionate returns. It has since come to light that the work orders and purchase orders furnished by the accused were fabricated and duplicated, and that the profit-sharing scheme was a false representation intended only to induce trust and attract investments. No genuine business profits were generated or shared, thereby revealing the fraudulent nature of the entire scheme. During an independent enquiry, the purchase/work orders claimed to be from reputed clients were confirmed to be forged and fake.

               2.5. The accused represented that the funds received from the investors would be utilised for legitimate business activities relating to the manufacture and supply of school uniforms, bags, burkas, sarees, bed sheets, blankets and other materials. To lend credibility to such representations, they allegedly generated GST bills and complied with certain tax formalities, thereby creating a misleading appearance of genuine commercial activity. The aforesaid financial misconduct has been formally admitted by the accused in a signed declaration dated 10.05.2025, wherein they acknowledged that the work orders and purchase orders furnished by them were fraudulently issued and used to obtain funds under the false pretext of executing genuine business transactions. The accused have fraudulently collected the above amounts from them. The consistent pattern of deceit, false documentation, and repeated delays in prepayment completely eroded their trust. In the meantime, respondent No.2 came to know that accused No.1 had obtained a Dubai Resident Card under a different surname and was attempting to flee the country, thereby giving rise to an apprehension that she intended to evade legal proceedings. Therefore, he compelled to seek the intervention and assistance of the police authorities to investigate the matter including tracing of the diverted funds and to take appropriate legal and criminal proceedings against the accused. Basing upon the said complaint, Crime No.104 of 2025 has been registered.

3. Heard Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. K.L.S. Sirisha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

4. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner:

               4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the ground that he is husband of accused No.1. The criminal law recognizes individual culpability and no vicarious liability and the petitioner cannot be prosecuted merely on account of his relationship with accused No.1. The only allegation levelled in the complaint against the petitioner is that he introduced accused No.1 to respondent No.2 and he was involved in execution of the work orders. The allegations levelled in the complaint, when read as a whole, discloses nothing more than a commercial arrangement relating to financing and investment in garment supply transactions. Respondent No.2 himself alleges that monies were advanced for execution of garment supply orders with the expectation of sharing profits and earning returns from the business. Such allegations, do not attract the ingredients of the offences levelled against the petitioner.

               4.2. He further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner that there is a dishonest intention and fraudulent inducement from the inception to attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS and also there is no allegation against the petitioner that any amount was entrusted to the petitioner and that he mis-appropriated such amount. Hence, the ingredients of the offence under Section 316(2) of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS cannot co-exist on the same set of allegations.

               4.3. He further submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner forged any document, used any forged document as genuine, or transferred any forged valuable security. Hence, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 336(3) and 340(2) of the BNS are also not attracted against the petitioner.

               4.4. He further submitted that respondent No.2, in the complaint itself, proceeds on the basis that the amounts were advanced towards financing and investment in garment supply transactions. Thus, the nature of the transaction is investment and commercial financing. Hence, the ingredients for the offence under Section 5 of the TPDFE Act are not attracted. He also submitted that the amounts advanced towards financing and investment in garment supply and the same does not fall within the meaning of ‘deposit’ as envisaged under Section 2(b) of the TPDFE Act and also accused No.1 company is not comes within the definition of ‘financial establishment’. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

               4.5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:

               1. Mohammad Ibrahim v. State of Bihar ((2009) 8 SCC 751);

               2. Delhi Race Club (194) Ltd. v. State of U.P. ((2024) 10 SCC 690);

               3. Manish v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 707);

               4. Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 823);

               5. Shailesh Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1462); and

               6. Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI ((2015) 4 SCC 609)

5. Submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1:

               5.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that the petitioner, being the husband of accused No.1, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, induced respondent No.2 and received the amounts along with other accused and created a fake business with a conspiracy, induced respondent No.2 and other investors to invest money in a garment business by promising high returns. The petitioner and other accused created forged documents and dishonestly used the said documents as genuine one to gain trust of the investors and misappropriated the amounts invested by the respondent No.2 and other victims more than Rs.100 Crores and approximately 40 firms/victims were suffered in the hands of the petitioner and other accused. When respondent No.2 made a demand to return their amounts, the petitioner and other accused admitted their guilt and executed a Declaration of Receipt and Acknowledgment, dated 09.05.2025, to respondent No.2 that they misused certain work orders, duplicate purchase orders, originally prepared by them, were fraudulently replicated and used to collect payments under the false pretense of executing the said orders. The petitioner and other accused further admitted the truth of these facts and confirmed that they were in the process of returning the amounts so collected from M/s. Touchstone Enterprises.

               5.2. He further submitted that as per the instructions of the petitioner and other accused, respondent No.2 and his company have transferred huge amount of Rs.73 Crores to eleven vendor companies including M/s.Himalayan Foil Solutions Private Limited. From the said eleven vendor companies/firms, some of the amounts/funds were transferred to accused No.1’s company namely M/s.Sri Sai Ram Enterprises, brother of accused No.1 company, namely Srinivasa Garments and also to the personal bank account of accused No.1, namely M. Sandhya Rani. Some amounts/funds were transferred from the companies of accused Nos.1 and 2 to the petitioner’s companies, namely, Indo Cotton LLP and NM Fashions and other firms.

               5.3. He further submitted that the petitioner is the husband of accused No.1 and a partner of M/s.Indo Cotton LLP, which is existing in the very same premises as M/s.Sri Rama Enterprises and Uni Cotton Apparal Exports Pvt. Ltd., which are belongs to his wife-accused No.1 and his friend-accused No.2, respectively. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, in collusion with accused Nos.1 and 2 and others, created fictitious business transactions with the firm of respondent No.2 and several other firms, thereby causing wrongful loss to respondent No.2 and approximately 40 other victims.

               5.4. The allegations levelled in the complaint are that the petitioner, accused Nos.1 and 2 in their illegal business by establishing the fake firms and that they used to operating the accounts of the said firms and transferred amounts from their firms into their personal accounts and mis-appropriated the amounts which were invested by respondent No.2 and other victims. The petitioner is also an accused in five other crimes with similar allegations which were registered in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh for the very same offences. He further submitted that the petitioner had approached the learned Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail vide Crl.M.P.No.4749 of 2026 and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court and filed anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.12925 of 2025 and the same was dismissed on 25.10.2025. Thereafter, he filed another anticipatory bail application before this Court, vide Crl.P.No.939 of 2026 and the said application was also dismissed on 10.02.2026.

               5.5. The allegations levelled in the complaint attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) read with 61(2) of the BNS and Section 5 of the TSDFE Act. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage, especially the investigation is under progress. Analysis

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2, being a partner of M/s. Touchstone Enterprises, lodged the present complaint against the petitioner and other accused, wherein it is stated that accused No.1, who is the proprietor of M/s. Sri Sai Ram Enterprises, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, was introduced to respondent No.2 through their common auditor, Mr. Venkata Raju. Accused No.1 projected that she was carrying on a large-scale uniform manufacturing business with multiple school contracts and substantial infrastructure and induced respondent No.2 to invest in the business on a profit-sharing basis. Believing the representation of accused No.1, respondent No.2’s company invested a huge amount of Rs.73 Crores between March, 2024 and March, 2025 through bank transfers. Accused No.1 controlled all the transactions, raised invoices and shared documents through her office staff, but never introduced respondent No.2 to the actual vendors or clients. Later, accused No.1 avoided communication and respondent No.2 discovered that the work orders and invoices furnished by her were fabricated, thereby respondent No.2 and his company caused wrongful loss of Rs.73 Crores.

7. There are specific allegations levelled in the complaint that the petitioner, in conspiracy with accused Nos.1 and 2, induced respondent No.2 to invest substantial amounts under the guise of a profit-sharing business, created and forged work orders, established fake firms and dishonestly diverted the invested funds. It is specifically stated that as per the instructions of accused No.1, respondent No.2’s company transferred an amount of Rs.73 Crores to the Vendor Companies/firms, namely, Himalaya Foil Solutions, Vajraman Enterprises, Jaya Varahi enterprises, SR Textiles, Rudra enterprises, Sri Chakra Enterprises, Srika Enterprises, Venkata Padma Enterprises, PSR Traders, Anu Designs and Krishna Industries, and from the said companies, some of the funds were transferred/diverted to companies of accused No.1, namely, M/s. Sri Sairam Enterprises and Unicotton Apparel India Limited; the companies of accused No.2, namely M/s.Srinivasa Garments, and the personal accounts of accused Nos.1 and 2. Further, some of the funds, originating from accused Nos.1 and 2 and their personal accounts, were further diverted to the personal account of the petitioner and his associated companies, namely, Ind. Cotton LLP, N & M Fashion, and misappropriated the amounts of respondent No.2 and his company. The above said allegations levelled in the complaint prima facie disclose the cognizable offences.

8. During the course of hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed the written instructions furnished by the Investigating Officer, dated 04.05.2026, which reveals that the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of two (2) witnesses and investigation is under progress and further reveals that the petitioner and other accused have made fake business and basing on the fabricated documents, invited investments from respondent No.2 and his company and other victims and the amounts which were invested by respondent No.2’s company and other victims were mis-appropriated and diverted into their several firms and also into their personal accounts and they caused financial loss to respondent No.2 and other victims, which is more than Rs.100 Crores and approsimately 40 victims were suffered in the hands of the petitioner and other accused. The written instructions further disclose that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in Crime Nos.65, 68 and 69 of 2025 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad, Crime No.251 of 2025 registered at Bhanoor Police Station, Medak District, and Crime No.21 of 2025 registered by the CID Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh, for the very same offences.

9. In Mohammad Ibrahim (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that where a person falsely claims ownership of property and executes a sale deed, the person who is deceived is the purchaser, not the true owner. Therefore, if anyone has been cheated, it is the purchaser who may complain under Section 420 IPC. The true owner, whose title is unaffected by such false representation, is ordinarily not the victim of cheating under Section 420 IPC merely because another person falsely sold his property. With regard to forgery, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such a document is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 IPC. If there is no false document, there is no forgery.

10. In Delhi Race Club (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the offence of cheating is attracted only when there is fraudulent or dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction. Mere breach of contract or non-payment of contractual dues, without such initial dishonest intention, gives rise only to a civil dispute. Likewise, criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property and subsequent dishonest misappropriation. The two offences are distinct in their essential ingredients and ordinarily cannot coexist on the same set of facts. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while explaining the scope of the offence of criminal breach of trust, held that the sine qua non for attracting the offence under Section 406 IPC is the existence of "entrustment" of property or dominion over property. Mere failure to honour a contractual obligation or non-payment of money, without proof of entrustment and subsequent dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal of the entrusted property in violation of any legal direction or contract, does not constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust. The Court further held that a mere breach of contract or a civil dispute cannot be given the colour of a criminal offence in the absence of the essential ingredients of Section 405 IPC. The offence of criminal breach of trust is distinct from the offence of cheating; while the former postulates entrustment followed by dishonest misappropriation, the latter requires fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. Therefore, unless the foundational requirement of entrustment is established, prosecution for criminal breach of trust is not maintainable.

11. In Manish (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, to constitute the offence of cheating under Sections 415 and 420 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. A mere failure to honour a subsequent contractual obligation or a mere breach of promise to repay does not, by itself, lead to an inference of dishonest intention. Where the materials on record demonstrate that the accused was carrying on a genuine business and there is nothing to indicate that he had knowingly suppressed his financial incapacity or insolvency while inducing the complainant to enter into the transaction, his representation cannot be treated as 'deception' merely because he subsequently defaulted in payment. Therefore, a subsequent breach of contract or failure to repay, without proof of dishonest intention existing from the very beginning, does not attract the offence of cheating.

12. In Rikhab Birani (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the criminal justice system should not be invoked to convert civil disputes into criminal prosecutions. The Court emphasized that investigating agencies and courts must satisfy themselves that the allegations disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence and that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue merely because the dispute arises out of a contractual or civil transaction.

13. In Shailesh Kumar Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that money cannot be recovered, particularly in a dispute which is essentially civil in nature, by lodging a First Information Report and invoking the machinery of the police. The Court held that the use of criminal proceedings as a means to recover money or enforce civil liabilities amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Where the grievance pertains to recovery of money arising out of a contractual or commercial transaction, the aggrieved party must avail the appropriate civil remedy, and cannot resort to criminal prosecution as a coercive mechanism for recovery.

14. The aforesaid judgments are distinguishable on facts and do not give aid to the petitioner. In Mohammad Ibrahim (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the execution of a sale deed by a person claiming ownership over the property and held that such execution, by itself, neither constitutes the offence of cheating against the true owner nor amounts to forgery in the absence of a "false document" within the meaning of Section 464 IPC. In Delhi Race Club (supra), Manish (supra), Rikhab Birani (supra) and Shailesh Kumar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered disputes arising out of contractual, commercial or monetary transactions and reiterated that a mere breach of contract, non-payment of money or other civil dispute, in the absence of dishonest intention at the inception or the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, cannot be given a criminal colour.

15. The factual matrix of the present case stands on an entirely different footing. It is not a case arising out of a mere breach of contract, recovery of money, or any other purely civil or commercial dispute. There are specific allegations levelled in the complaint that the petitioner and other accused, with a dishonest intention and in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, created, forged and fabricated work orders, induced respondent No.2 and other investors to invest money on a profit-sharing business in the garment business by promising high returns and used the forged documents. The said allegations prima facie attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) read with 61(2) of the BNS.

16. In Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is no concept of vicarious criminal liability under the Indian Penal Code unless the statute creating the offence expressly provides for such liability. Merely because a person is the Managing Director, Chairman or Director of a company, he cannot be prosecuted solely by virtue of the office he holds. Criminal liability is personal and must be founded on specific allegations and material demonstrating the active role of the individual coupled with the requisite criminal intent. Where the company is alleged to have committed an offence, its officers cannot automatically be held vicariously liable in the absence of a statutory provision incorporating such liability. An individual may, however, be prosecuted along with the company if there is sufficient material showing that he personally perpetrated the commission of the offence on behalf of the company with the necessary mens rea, or where the governing statute itself specifically creates vicarious liability. The doctrine of 'alter ego' operates only to attribute the acts and intent of the directing mind of the company to the company; it cannot be applied in the reverse direction so as to fasten criminal liability upon the directors or officers merely because the company is alleged to have committed the offence.

17. The above said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the principle that vicarious criminal liability cannot be fastened upon directors or officers of a company in the absence of a statutory provision or specific allegations demonstrating their active role and requisite mens rea, especially the complaint contains specific allegations that the petitioner, along with the other accused, represented that they were carrying on a large-scale school uniform manufacturing business having multiple school contracts and substantial infrastructure, and, on the strength of such representations, induced respondent No.2 and other investors to invest money on a profit-sharing basis. It is further alleged that, pursuant to such inducement, the petitioner and the other accused created forged work orders and invoices to lend credibility to their representations and thereby gained the confidence of respondent No.2 and other investors. The complaint further alleges that, after receiving the invested amounts, the petitioner and the other accused dishonestly misappropriated the funds by diverting them to their firms as well as their personal bank accounts, thereby causing wrongful loss to respondent No.2 and the other investors and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.

18. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel that Section 5 of the TPDFE Act are not attracted on the ground that the amount invested by respondent No.2 and his company not comes within the meaning of deposit, is not tenable under law, on the ground that there are specific allegations in the complaint that the petitioner and other accused induced respondent No.2 and other investors to invest money on a profit-sharing business in the garment business by promising high returns. After obtaining the investments, the petitioner and other accused dishonestly misappropriated the funds by diverting to their firms as well as their personal bank accounts.

19. The specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is an accused in another five crimes for similar offences, which were registered in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, and the investigation in the present crime is under progress. The record further reveals that the petitioner had approached the learned Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail, vide Crl.M.P.No.4749 of 2026, and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, he approached this Court and filed anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.12925 of 2025 and the same was dismissed on 25.10.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another anticipatory bail application before this Court, vide Crl.P.No.939 of 2026 and the said application was also dismissed, by its order dated 10.02.2026.

20. It is relevant to mention that in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated the limited scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that such power may be exercised only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, legally barred, or manifestly mala fide, while cautioning that the categories so enumerated are illustrative and the power must be exercised sparingly. The said principles were reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ((2021) 19 SCC 401), wherein it was emphasized that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences and that Courts should not interdict investigation at the threshold unless no cognizable offence is disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR; the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of all facts, and criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at their nascent stage.

21. It is relevant to mention that in Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and others ((2022) 2 SCC 129), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court must not act as a trial or appellate court by weighing evidence or testing the truth of allegations. At the quashing stage, the only test is whether the allegations in the compliant, taken at face value, prima facie make out the ingredients of the alleged offence. It is further clarified that the High Court should apply two key tests while considering quashing of an FIR (i) whether the allegations, if taken as true, prima facie constitute an offence, and (ii) whether they are so improbable that no reasonable person could conclude that sufficient ground exists to proceed.

22. It is already stated supra that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint that the petitioner, along with accused Nos.1 and 2, with a dishonest intention and in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, created, forged and fabricated work orders, induced respondent No.2 to invest money on a profit-sharing business in the garment business by promising high returns and used the forged documents to gain his confidence. After obtaining the investments, the petitioner and other accused dishonestly misappropriated the funds by diverting to their firms as well as their personal bank accounts, thereby causing wrongful loss to respondent No.2 and his company to a tune of Rs.73 Crores and according to prosecution other 40 victims were also suffered in the hands of the petitioner and other accused and approximately more than Rs.100 Crores was misappropriated. The allegations levelled in the complaint prima facie disclose cognizable offences, and as the investigation is still in progress. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage and this case does not fall under rarest of the rare case to exercise the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS..

23. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.104 of 2025 on the file of the Economic Offences Wing Team-X, CCS, Hyderabad, (Central Crime Station, Hyderabad) against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

24. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.