Hyd police summon Pradeep Agarwal for questioning in cheating case (Ld)

The Hyderabad police have summoned Pradeep Agarwal, senior sales director in Oracle India, to appear before it for questioning in a case of cheating lodged against him and three others earier this year.

The police on Monday served the notice to Pradeep, who is also said to be the mentor and former Managing Director of MADS Creations, a Gurugram-based interior design service provider.

S. Naveen Reddy, sub-inspector of police, Jubliee Hills Police Station, has asked Agarwal to appear before him within seven days for questioning.

The officer told IANS that the case was registered against Agarwal, his wife Meenu Agarwal and two others, all residents of Gurugram, on February 2, 2021, under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case was booked on a complaint filed by a Telugu television channel, which alleged that it was duped to the tune of Rs 2 crore by the accused persons, who were given project for interior designing of its office.

Pradeep reportedly claimed to be country head of Oracle India. The police official earlier said this was not confirmed yet.

Meanwhile, Oracle clarified on Tuesday that Agarwal is not its India head. “Oracle has zero involvement in this matter. We would also like to state that Pradeep Agarwal is not the Oracle India Head,” the company said.

However, he is a senior sales director in the IT firm.

In the notice, the officer said that during investigation, the police found that there are reasonable grounds to question Agarwal to ascertain the facts and circumstances.

The accused has been directed not to tamper with the evidence or threaten any person.

“Failure to attend/comply with the terms of the notice can render you liable for arrest under Section 41-A (3) and (4) of CrPC,” the notice said.

The complainant alleged that Agarwal and the other accused persons duped their clients by taking advance money for executing inferior quality work and in some cases vanishing from the site without completing the project.

They were also unilaterally increasing the project cost on their own without consent from the client, it was alleged.

In order to coerce their clients into paying the higher amount, they were also allegedly threatening them with implication in false cases, the complainant said.