Facts of the Case

This is a criminal quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, not a GST adjudication. Petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4 — Amit Suresh Lodha, Indu Lodha, and Suresh Mal Lodha — sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 185 of 2022 pending before the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, for offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Sections 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, arising from a complaint by M/s Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The complaint concerned the company (accused No. 1, since renamed M/s Castino Dynamics Limited, previously M/s Indsur Global Ltd., now represented by a Resolution Professional as it is under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the criminal proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4 should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
  2. Whether their personal attendance before the Trial Court could be dispensed with pending trial.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioners were falsely implicated and had never committed any offence as alleged by respondent No. 2 (the complainant company).
  • The petitioners were in no way concerned with the payment of GST — that liability, if any, was the company's, not theirs personally.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed quashing, submitting that the police had duly investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against the petitioners.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that the petitioners were erstwhile Directors of the company, and the matter related to payment of GST by the company, not by the petitioners personally; further, accused No. 1-company was under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
  • Rather than quashing the proceedings outright, the Court dispensed with the personal appearance/attendance of petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4 before the Trial Court, except when specifically required (for example, at the stage of examination under Section 313 CrPC or pronouncement of judgment).
  • The petitioners were given liberty to file a discharge application before the Trial Court, to be decided on merits within three weeks, uninfluenced by the High Court's observations.

Important Clarification

The Court's observation that the alleged GST non-payment was the company's liability (not the individual petitioners') was made only to justify dispensing with their personal appearance — it is not a ruling on any GST law question, and no GST adjudication occurred. The underlying criminal case (alleged cheating and forgery) remains pending on its own merits before the Trial Court, and the quashing petition itself was not allowed; only the procedural burden of personal appearance was eased.

Sections Involved

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 406, 420, 34, 120B
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482

Decision – In Favour of

A mixed, largely procedural disposal. The petition to quash was not granted; instead, personal appearance was dispensed with and liberty was given to seek discharge before the Trial Court — disposed of without a decision on the merits of the cheating allegations.

Case Details

Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 8300 of 2023 with I.A. No. 1 of 2023
Coram: Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy
Date of Order: 30 August 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.