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 suspend the impugned order dated 20-02-2025 passed in Crl.lV.P.No.524 of 2025 in Cr.No.1093 of 2024 of PS Cyber Crimes, CCS, DD, Hyderabad on the file of Xll Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampatly, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Maruti Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER I t , , : l - ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.265 OF 2025 I This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 597 & 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of the order daled 20.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.524 of 2025 in Crime No.1093 of 2024 of Cyber Crime Station, DD Hyderabad, on the file of XII Additional Chief Judicial Nlagistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. Heard [t,4r S.l/laruti Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1 -State.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the respondent No.2/ de-facto complainant filed a report stating that, he was attracted by the advertisement about the free Stock Market advice and training by Pantheon Ventures an UK Based Fund Manager, joined the programme. The organizers, after gaining his confidence, introduced an App based kading for bulk trade/tPO with promising returns. After investment of Rs.22,00,000/- they declined his request to exit and insisted for investment of Rs.30,00,000/- more. Thus realizing the deception lodged the Police Report. -.,,1 l 2 C) rl.IlC.N o. 2 6 5 of 202 5

4. During the course of investigation, as per National Crime Portal (NCRP), found that out of the amount deposited by the complainant, disputed amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was credited in Layer-2 of the tuc.No.353702010008014 of Union Bank of lndia, Sony Bazar, Dera Sheri Mandavi Chowk, Rajkot, Gujarat. Whereupon the NCRP freezed the bank account of the petitioner. The petitioner, who is the Bank account holder/third party filed impugned petition with a prayer to defreeze the account with a plea that freezing of the Bank account is causing hardship in carrying out his day-to-day business operations and even unable to meet daily expenses. Further offered that as the disputed amount is only Rs.1 ,00,000/- to freeze/create/lean to the extent of disputed sum and permit him to operate his Bank account. The trial Court though observed that Rs.'1 ,00,000/- was transferred to the account of the petitioner in Layer-2 transaction, approved the freezing of the Bank account. Thus, the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is even-handedly maintaining his account and he is no way involved in the offence or not a beneficiary from the de-facto complainant. However, as the investigating agency has pointed out deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-, freezing or creating lean to that extent and allowing the petitioner to operate the account would secure his I I I I 3 NT&/ C:i.kC.No.265 of 2025 business interests. Thus, prayed for necessary orders by setting aside I the impugned order

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the digital transaction is evidencing as to deposit of Rs.1,00,0001 in the petitioner's account. Thus to secure the interests of the parties, freezing the account; is justified.

7. I have perused the materials on record. B. The Crime is pertaining to investment fraud. As per the lnvestigating Agency, the NCRP has confirmed that the de-facto complainant deposited amounts to several accounts and one such account is of the petitioner i.e. 353702010008014 of Union Bank of lndia and the disputed amount is of Rs.1,00,000/- as Layer-2 transaction. -Ihe petitioner's pleading that he is no way involved in the offence and his account is with the balance about 38,00,000/- and requirement of the account and amounts therein for his business transaction in juxtaposition with the fact that there is no material referring to the involvement of the petitioner in the offence and the Bank account of the petitioner is not reflecting any other suspicious 1 \ amount than the disputed amount of Rs.1,00,000i-, completely , restraining the petitioner to operate his Bank account and freezing I ' 4 O/.I-C.N0.265 o{2025 entire amount lying in the account is found excessive. Further, the prosecution record is not making out any other reasonable ground for continuance of complete freezing of the petitioner's account. ln the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that restricting the direction of freezing the Bank account to the extent of the disputed amount would meet the interest of all the parties

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondent No.1/Police concerned/complainant is directed to issue necessary directions to the Banker i.e. Union Bank of lndia, Sony Bazar, Dera Sheri Mandavi Chowk, Rajkot, Gujarat, reskicting the freezing order to the extent of disputed amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- in the petitioner's Account bearing No.353702010008014, whereafter, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate his Bank Account.

10. ln the above terms, this Revision Petition is allowed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. so)- rvrono. lsMAlL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally' !V-09'9b99 . 2. The Station House Otficei Cyber Crime Police Station' CCS'DD' Hyderabad' 5. r*L Cct to the Public piot""'tot, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. o;; cc to tr/,lr. S. Maruti Rao, Advocate [oPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad. [OUT] / Kam/SWT fu- i I I I I t I HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 s s ll5 EQp ORDER CRLRC.No.265 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE I @ d. t