1. Heard Sri. P.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri.A.Venkatesh, learned senior counsel appearing for proposed respondent Nos.5 and 6. With their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondents No.4 in not conducting proper investigation in accordance with the procedure contemplated under section 173(2) of Cr.P.C/193(3) of BNSS as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, with a consequential prayer seeking direction to respondent No.4 to complete the investigation as contemplated under section 1732 173(2) of Cr.P.C/193(3) of BNSS.

3. Brief facts stated in this writ petition are that petitioner is a company registered before the ROC Hyderabad on 29.01.2009, in the name and style as ‘Globe Line Shipping Services Pvt Ltd’. The petitioner company is engaged in import and export of containerized ocean cargo and many other services including international shipping and logistics solutions. It is submitted that in the year 2020, Mrs.B Reddy Anupama was appointed as Manager HR in the petitioner company and taking advantage of her position in the company, Mrs.B Reddy Anupama, in collusion with GK Naidu and Subbah Naidu has withdrawn company’s funds of Rs.47,47,919/-, and further has taken two (2) four-wheeler vehicles for their personal use i.e., Toyota Innova Crysta bearing registration No.TS09FU1626 and Audi Q7 registration No.TS09FY1626, which were purchased from the company’s funds. The said criminal conspiracy has come to light in the external audit of the company and when the petitioner company requested Mrs.B Reddy Anupama, GK Naidu and Subbah Naidu, to return the subject vehicles, they refused to return the same. Thereafter, petitioner company lodged a complaint on 12.02.2024 before the SHO, Banjarahills, however, the same was returned. Hence, the petitioner on 29.04.2024 lodged another complaint before respondent No.4 and when the same was not considered, petitioner company lodged another complaint on 03.05.2024, before respondent No.3 stating that Mrs.B Reddy Anupama, GK Naidu and Subbah Naidu entered into criminal conspiracy and in a pre-planned manner had committed criminal breach of trust and thereby cheated the company and siphoned the company amount with an intention to enrich themselves and caused wrongful loss to the company and requested the respondent No.3 to register complaint and take action against the above said persons for deliberately and fraudulently committing criminal breach of trust and cheating. However, when the same was not considered, the Finance Manager of the petitioner company, filed W.P.No.14062 of 2024 and this Court vide order dated 13.06.2024, passed the following order:-

               “2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, having received written instructions, submitted that FIR No.544 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code with Kukatpally Housing Board Colony Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, on the complaint of the petitioner dated 29.04.2024. Thus, cause in this writ petition does not survive requiring any further adjudication.

               3. A copy of written instructions along with FIR is served on learned counsel for the petitioner.

               4. In view of the aforesaid submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.”

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the date of registration of FIR No.544 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024, the respondent No.4 did not conduct proper investigation and though the respondent police having power to seize any property which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence, has not seized the subject vehicles. Learned senior counsel would further submit that till date the respondent authorities neither investigated Mrs.B Reddy Anupama, GK Naidu and Subbah Naidu, nor conducted proper investigation in accordance with the provision contemplated under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C/193(3) of BNSS. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 on instructions submits that a final report dated 02.07.2025 in Crime No.544 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 is filed before the learned IV AJCJ Cum XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad (herein after referred as ‘the trial Court’) and has placed a copy of final report dated 02.07.2025 before this Court, wherein it is stated that on petitioner’s complaint, investigation was conducted and notice under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C was issued to accused No.1 on 19.06.2024. It is further submitted that for obtaining tracking details of the subject vehicles, letter to Managers of Audi showroom and Fortune Toyota Showroom were issued and it was revealed that a case is pending before learned V Junior Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad and on 09.05.2025 and the said Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo.

6. Learned Government Pleader for Home would submit that on 25.06.2025, notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C was issued to the petitioner for providing eye witness, documentary evidence and other relevant documents, however, petitioner failed to comply the notice dated 25.06.2025. He would further submit that since no evidence was placed by the petitioner and as the dispute is relating to internal corporate and business disagreements and financial related matter, the respondent No.3 vide proceeding bearing No.616/ACP-KP/CYB/2025 dated 30.06.2025, referred the case as Civil in Nature and notice to that effect was also served to the petitioner through registered post on 02.07.2025.

7. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the notice dated 25.06.2025, petitioner through his legal counsel on 01.07.2025 submitted relevant documents and without considering the same, respondent authorities had filed final report dated 02.07.2025 in Crime No.544 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 before the trial Court. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities have also failed to consider the main ingredients of the complaint dated 03.05.2024 and did not conduct investigation to the extent of criminal elements made in the complaint dated 03.05.2024. Learned senior counsel would submit that the vehicles were purchased in the name of the petitioner company and till date the petitioner company is paying EMI’s and insurance premium. Since the vehicles are owned by the petitioner company, the said persons i.e., Mrs.B Reddy Anupama, GK Naidu and Subbah Naidu, has no authority to use the vehicles.

8. Learned senior counsel appearing for proposed respondent Nos.5 and 6 would submit that the proposed respondents are major share holders of the petitioner company and with the knowledge of the petitioner company, they are using the vehicles.

9. In the case on hand, it is pertinent to note that in the final report dated 02.07.2025, the respondent authorities have not mentioned about the petitioner reply dated 01.07.2025 and without considering the same, respondent authorities have filed the final report dated 02.07.2025 before the trial court.

10. After arguing at length, learned Government Pleader for Home submits that if the petitioner approach the investigation officer and submit the relevant documents, the same would be considered.

11. At this stage, learned senior counsel for the petitioner pray this Court to grant liberty to petitioner to approach the investigation officer and submit relevant documents and evidence before the respondent authorities and further pray this Court to direct the respondent authorities to consider the same and take up investigation in accordance with law.

12. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel on either side and since the final report dated 02.07.2025 in Crime No.544 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 is filed without considering the petitioner’s reply dated 01.07.2025, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the investigation officer to be present in the respondent No.4 police station on 30.12.2025 at 10.30 Am and the petitioner may approach the investigation officer on 30.12.2025 at 10.30 Am and submit relevant documents and witnesses in support of contentions in complaint dated 03.05.2024, thereafter, the investigation officer is directed to examine the same and after giving fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall take up further investigation strictly in accordance with law and file additional/supplementary report or charge sheet before the trial Court, as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner is permitted to take assistance of his counsel at the time of submitting the documents on 30.12.2025.

13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it is for the respondent authorities to examine the documents submitted by the petitioner and take action in accordance with law.

14. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, I.A.No.1 of 2025 (Implead petition) and other miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.