The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit.filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further all further proceeding in C.C. NO. 204 of 201g on tne file of sessions. -Judge, Nampally at Hyderabad, including presence .of Petitioner/Accused No. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Mir Sameer Hussain Counsel for the Respondent : pubtic prosecutor CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 242 OF 2025 Revision case filed under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS against the order dated 17.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.2346 of 2024 in C.C. No.205 of 2019 on thefite of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad. Between: Qr.. Lingala Sravya, W{o. John Wesley Mandru, Aged 'peia, Orthopaedic Siurgeon H.No. 14-64, Christian. Krishna Dist. Andhra Pradesh. about 35 Yrs., Occ Gannavaram-S21101, AND ...Revision Petitioner/Accused No. 4 The State of Tela Prosecutor, High [gan3, through Ps-c.cs, DD Hyderabad represented by public Court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad, .RespondenUComplainant lA NO: I OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.205 of 2019 on the file of Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad including presence of petitioner/accused No.4, pending disposal of the above criminal Revision c.ase. counsel for the Petitioner : sri. Mir sameer Hussain Counsel for the Respondent : public prosecutor Revision case filed under section 438 & 442 of BNSS against the order dated 17.01.2025 passed in crl.M.P. No.2345 of 2024 in c.c. No.204 of 2o1g onthefile of the Court of the Siessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad. Between: Kommula Malles;ham, S/o. Gata.iah, AgeO alout 48 Yrs. Occ. Nuclear Scientist, Resident of LrG s7, B.K. Guda Uday NSgar cotony,-sanitn tGdi Hr"raoio.'-'' ...Revision petitioner/Accused No. S AND The state of relangang, Prosecutor, High C-ourt at Hyd6rabad, HydeiiOai, !f tot{gh ps-ccs, DD Hyderabad represented by pubric - - RespondenUComplainant lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding in C.C.No.204 of ZOig on the file of sessions Judge, Nampaily at Hyderabad, including presence of Petitioner/Accused No. S. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Mir Sameer Hussain Counsel for the Respondent : public prosecutor The Court made the following THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Crl.R.C.Ns.257, 242 Eb 243 OF 2O2S COMMON ORDER: These crinrinal Revision cases are filed seeking to set aside . the orders dated 17 .O1.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.234 4 , 2346 and 2344 of 2024 in C.C.No.2O4 of 2019, on the file of Sessions Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punish,able under Sections 403, 408,42O and 506 rlw.l2o (B) of IPC and Section 5 of the Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments A.ct, 1999 (for short TSPDFB Act').

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Assisr:ant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Since the is;sue involved in all these revision petiti,rns is one and the same, all are heard together and disposed of, by way of this common orde'r.

4. Brief facts of the case are that revision petitioners herein are arrayecl as A-4 and A-5. The petitioner/A-4 is the niece of A-1 and joined the compa;ry of A- 1 in the year, 1994 in Hyderabad, while she was 6 years old. To pursue her career she left to vijayawada and thereafter, she completed her MBBS in Amalapurarrr and has finishecl her courrse as orthopedic Surgeon in Kakinacler Medical college. Liker,vise , petitioner /A-s is the husband of A-3 and is \._* Lti 2 working as Nuclear Scientist at Manuguru, Department of Atomic Energr. The allegation against these petitionerslA-4 & A-5 are that they along with other accused have collected an amount of Rs.1.69 crores flrom the complainant and 8 other chit members.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the petitioners herein/A-4 and A-5 along with A- I to A-3 were running private chits without having any valid license. It is further stated that during the course of investigation it was found that thc petitioner lA-4 is having criminal record and is involved in Cr.No.56 of 20 18, which was later compromised before Lok Adalal-. She was also involved in Cr.No.7O of 2018 of Central Crime Station. It is further contended that petitioner/A-s along with A- I to A-4 collected ttre amounts from the complainant and other victims with a promise to repay the chit amounts. But later they failed to repay the same and threatened the complainants with dire consequences. FSL report also established that A-4 has signed on the cheques, pocket books and receipts and chits. Further, the documents collected by the prosecution also establish the involvement of A-5 in the crime. , Hence, the role of the petitioners herein cannot be ruled out.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that imposition of Section 5 of TSPDFE Act does not attract to the cAse / i I 3 onhand.Butthe:respondents,onlytoimplicatethepr:t.itioners herein have imposed the said Section against the pr:l-itioners herein. He further submits that the petitioners herein are highly educated and they stay far away from Hyderabad and therefore' thepetitionersha.yenothingtodowiththesaidcrimezrndtheir involvementCanberuledout.Hewouldfurthersubmitthatthe properties in ques'tion which have been acquired by thc accused havebeenacquiredmuchpriortothesaidcrimetttlsbeen registered, for thaL matter, the allegations r'r'hich has been alleged againstthepetitionersherein.Hefurthersubmitsthatthe petitionershereinhaveneatandcleanrecordandunblemished character. Therefc're, they cannot be brought under ther ambit of law.LearnedcounselfurthersubmitsthatnoCaseshavebeen filed against the petitioners herein except the cases that ttre liled at the behest of the respondents. Relying on the order passr:d by this CourtinCrl.A.No.38of2o:rgdatedol.ll.2022,learnedcounsel would submit that the case on hand does not fall within the ambit ofsection5ofTS]PDFEact.Statingthus,learnedcourrselseeks indulgence of this court to set aside the orders passed by the trial Court,dismissingthedischargeapplicationsfiledbythe petitioners herein.

6. .- ^{parned A:;sistant Public Prosecutor opposing the said contentions 'uvould submit that the petitioners herein have *t-'.' 4 apparently involved in the said crime. The petitioner/A_4 was found to be involved in other cases also. The FSL report also establishes that the A-4 has signed the cheques, pocket books, receipts and chits. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners herein are not involved in the said crime. The plea that the petitioners are not in the company of the other accused at Hyderabad can only be known after conducting thorough trial. Hence, he submits that the trial court has rightly dismissed the discharge applications filed by the petitioners. He further submits that since the trial has already commenced, the petitioners herein have to cooperate with the trial to eiicit the truth. Accordingly, seeks dismissal of the Criminal Revision Cases.

7. since the above said circumstances would reveal that the A_ 4 is the signatory to the cheques, pocket books, receipts and chits and the documents filed by the prosecution would reveal the involvement of A-5 in the crime, this court do not see any reason or ground to interfere with the reasoned orders passed by the trial court. Insofar Section s of rspDFE Act is concerned, the petitioners are always at liberty to raise all their contentions before the court below prior to framing of charges. It is therefore, cannot be assumed that petitioners have lost final opportunity to challenge the same / 5

8. Accordin5lly, the criminal Revision cases fail and consequently, they are dismissed. Miscellaneous apprlications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR \l } CTION OFFTCER \ \ I I I t //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Session:i Judge, Nampally, Hvderabad. 2. The Station l-touse" ofiig;r:, C65 iit#"SHiion, F_Divisio n, Hyderabad. 3 4' one cc to sri.'Mir sameer Hussain Advocate topucl 5. Two CD Copies prcjieiutor, Stiie oii6r"nsana, Hish ior.t Buirdinss, ],-,1r3*[?:ifutf,tic DL/PSL i_ lkl_. !,/ 4 HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 COMMON ORDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 257, 242 & 243 O 'i .,-: ':i I,.! \ I'6 1 5 !{ll\l ilut a * ,--A * DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASES ll )5 \