The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR No 33 of 2024 before the Cyber Crimes Police Station, TSCSB (TS) Cyber seburity Bureau (TSCSB) against Petitioner/Accused '14 as illegal arbilrary and abuse of process of law l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner in FIR no.33 of 2024 before the Cyber Crimes Police Station, TSCSB (TS) Cyber security Bureau (TSCSB) This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri YOGESH KUMAR HEROOR, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI M.VTVEKANANDA REDDY, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.356O of 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.14 in Crime No.33 of 2O24 of Cyber Crime Police Station, TSCSB (TS Cyber Security Bureau), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318, 319 and 338 of BNS and Section 66D of IT Act - 2008.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de fac to complaina,nt on 21.10.2024 lodged a complaint before the Cyber Crime Police Station alleging online hnancial fraud amounting to Rs.8,14,98,62 1l-. He stated that in July 2024, he received a WhatsApp message from one Melanie Lyons (SIG Group) and joined a group named "SIG Trading," where trading tips and IpO-related information were shared. He further stated that he u'as influenced by the group admins, including Eric Robertson and Melanie Lyons, joined a fake trading app named "RK Global" and was added to a customer care group and that he was lured into investing in block trades and IPOs through so-called institutional accounts, under the assurance of guaranteed allotments and profits. From 16.07.2024 to 03.tO.2O24, he made multiple fund transfers 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3560 of 2O25 totaling Rs.8.14 crores to various accounts provided by the accused. Although one withdrawal of Rs.2,000/- was successful, further attempts to withdraw profits failed. On contacting customer support, he was asked to pay additionai amounts under the pretext of taxes, SEBI inspections, and irregularities. Despite transferring further sums, including Rs.75 lakhs claimed to be part of a loan for resolving issues, he was continuously asked to pay more, leading him to suspect fraud. On 18.10.2024, he filed a complaint via the cybercrime helpline. The transactions were made from his ICICI and Axis Bank accounts to several bank accounts under different names, and screenshots of these transactions were attached to the complaint.

3. Basing on the said complaint the Police registered a case in Crime No.33 of 2024 before the Crime No.33 of 2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, TSCSB (TS Cyber SecuritSr Bureau), for the offences punishable under Sections 318, 319 and 338 of BNS and Section 66D of IT Act - 2OO8. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/ accused No. 14 filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against him.

4. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Heroor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, I I : I i i i t i I i l i a I I *7 I I I I I l I I : i i ! I i I l l 3 SKS,J Crl.P.I{o.3560 of 2025 learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2,none appeared on his behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR does not disclose any offence against the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.14 and that there is no mention of his name in the complaint, nor is there any ailegation suggesting his involvement or any nexus with the other accused. He further submitted tl'rat the petitioner is a practicing Chartered Accountant based in Gujarat and has never met or communicated with the complainant in any manner, either directly or indirectly and that even the remand report and the statements recorded during investigation do not attribute any role or act to the petitioner, and there is no material to indicate any common intention to commit the alleged offences.

6. karned counsei for the petitioner contended that that the pctitioner had never visited Hyderabad during the period of the alleged offence and has no connection with the alleged transactions and that the imphcation of the petitioner appears to be baseless, q.ithout any supporting evidence, and is only intended to harass and pressurize him, amounting to an abuse of the lega1 process. 4 sxs,J c11.P.No,3s60 of2025 Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition. 7 . On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the case was registered against the petitioner based on the confession statement of accused No 7, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had introduced accused No.8. Pursuant to that, accused No.7 handed over ATM and othcr cards to accused No.8. Th€refore, the matter requires adjudication, and at this stage, quashing of proceedings against i the petitioner does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. In the iight of the submissions made by both the learned

8. counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the confession statement of accused No.7- As per the remand report, the petitioner is stated to be in contact with accused Nos.8 and 12 and is alleged to have operated the bank account of accused No.7. However, there are no speciltc allegations against the petitioner, except the claim that he introduced accused No.8. Further, the remand report does not 5 SKS,J Crl.P.lto.356O of 2025 disclose any specific overt acts or averrnents constituting any of the offences alleged in the complaint. In the absence of any prima facie material against the petitioner, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 9 . Accorclingly, this Criminal petition is aliowed and the proceedings against the pe tilioner/accused No.14 in Crime No.33 of 2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, TSCSB (TS Cyber Securitv Bureau), are hereby quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII Sd- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( !{-, SECTION OFFICER To '1. The vl Additionar chief Judiciar Magistrate at Hyderabad, Hyderabad Diskict 2. The station House officer, cyber crimes porice station TScsB, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District

3. One CC to SRt YOGESH KUMAR HEROOR Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two ccs to Pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies qff- VM/gh _ _11. . i i r-q .. :\.-\.. "/..,\. (.' ! I ) 16 SEP 2025 : * i'Se -.1 '- ..,-/. HIGH COURT DATED: 0210712025 ORDER CRLP.No.3560 ol 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION (r q 1-t