Syed Arif Ali v. The State Of Telangana

I [ 321s ] (sHow cAUsE NoTrcE BEFORE ADMISSTON)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR :PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 615 OF 2(J24 Between:

1. M. Phani Shankar, S/o M. S. S. Shastri (A-5)

2. Gopi Krishna Vemula, S/o Kameshwar Rao Vemula (4-6)

3. Yerraguntla Teja, S/o Nagendra (A-7) 4, Irigela Hari Krishna Reddy S/o Veebudhi Reddy (A-8)

5. Vamshi Krishna Vemula, S/o Ramadevi (A-9) 6, Sha n mugaperumal/ S/o Shankaralingam (A-10)

7. Nandishishwaran Samraj, S/o Samraj (A-12) B. Rahul Surapaneni, S/o Subbarao (A-13) Petitio ne rsl Accused AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of for the State ofTelangana at Hyderabad. (R-1)

2. Sri Kishan Sanku, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Occ Head Human Resources and Operations At Digi Sprint Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad R/o. Green District ( R-2) Respo ndents/ Defacto Complainant WHEREAS the Petitioners above named through their Advocate Sri Abhishek Ruthwick presented this Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in the Crl.P, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in connection with C. C, No.t748l2}23 on the file of the court of XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at

Kukatpally, Rangareddy District and quash the same, so far as the petitioners are concerned;

AND WHER.EAS the High Court upon perusing the petition and memorandum of grourds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Abhishek Ruthwick Advocate For the Petitioners/ Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 directed issue oF notice to the Respondent No.2 herein to show cause as to why this CRIMINAL PETITION should not be admitted. You viz;

Sri Kishan Sanku S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Occ Head Human Resources and Operations At Digi Sprint Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad R/o. Green District are directed to show cause on or before 27.02,2024 to which date the case stands posted as to why in the circumstances set out in the petition and the memorandum of grounds filed therewith (copy enclosed) this CRIMINAL PETITION should not be admitted, IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 oF Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners in connection with C. C. No.1748/2023 on the file of the court of XIi Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Rangareddy District pending disposal of CRLP No. 61,5 of 2024, on the file of the High Court. The Court made the follc,wing:

ORDER

Issue notice to respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted personal notice on the respondent No.2 by RpAD and service in the registry.

to take out file proof of

, Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are all employees of one company by name Kognivera IT Solutions Private Limited and on the ground that there is a theft of technology from the company to another company by name Digisprint, the present complaint has been filed. However, it is noticed that the company Kognivera IT Solutions has not been made a party here nor is the complaint given by the Digisprint. Further as stated by the learned senior counsel it appears that the complainant is an employee of the Digisprint. It is also submitted that the main accused i.e.

, A1, A2, A3, A4 & also A10 are all absconding and that without issuing notices to the petitioners, they have been made as accused in this case, It is submitted that in the FIR, only the name of A5 has been pointed out and other accused have been added subsequently, It is submitted since the main complaint is against the Accused Nos.1 to 4, if they appear, then the petitioners are also going to participate and co-operate with the Police for investigation. They also denied the allegations made against them with regard to the transfer of technology without permission. In view of the above submissions and also that the petitioners are all employees of a company which has not made a party to the complaint, this Court is inclined to stay all further proceedings. List this matter on 27.O2.2O24, sd/- P.

1. The XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Rangareddy District

2. The Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad

3. Sri Kishan Sanku, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Occ Head Human Resources and Operations At Digi Sprint Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad R/o' Green

District (by RPAD- along with a copy of petition and memorandum of g rou nds )

4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad (OUT)

5. One CC to SRI ABHISHEK RUTHWICK Advocate [OPUC]

6. One spare copy Note: In the order in Crl.P. No.615 of 2024 dated 12.01,2024 the last paragraph is deleted vide C.O. dated 30.01.2024. Substitute this amended order in place of the order which was already dispatched on 23.OL.2024 sd/- P. GowRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

HIGH COURT TMD/J DATED:12lOLl2024 30/Or/2024 Lisl on 27.0?-.2024 AMENDED NOTICE BEFORE ADMISSION \\ CRLP.No.615 ot 2024 i5\ STAY