High Court · 2025

'1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad through SHO, Karimnagar ll Town P.S., Karimnagar District.

2. Chirumamilla Siva Prasad, S/o Ch. Satyam Aged about 32 years, Occ Business, R/o 8-3-988/ 1 1/'l /A, SBH Extension 925, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 pleased to call for the records in FIR No.360 of 2023 on the file of INSP. ADMN (DD) Police Station, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District and quash the 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including arrest in connection with FIR No.360 of 2023 on the file of INSP. ADMN (DD) Police Station, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District in so far as the petitioners are concerned, pending disposal of the main Criminal petition 7 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bala Murali Y, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 None appeared for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER . l THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI cRl NAL PETITI ON No.5024 oF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik .BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of the Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short proceedings In Crime No.360 of 2023 on the file of INSP' ADMN (DD) Police Station, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District, against the petitioners' The petitioner No.1 is arrayed as accused No 4 in Crime No'360 of 2. 2023 and petitioner No.2 name has been referred in the remand report in the crime registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406' 420 r/w34lPC,section5ofTelanganaStateProtectionofDepositorscf Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short' 'TSPDFEA')'

3.HeardMr.Y.BalaMurali,learnedcounselforthepetitionersand Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor' representing the respondent No '1-State' The prosecutaon case in brief is that in January' 2022 the de facto 4. complainanUshiva Prasad and similar others in the social media came across a business advertisement by one Gunda Suresh/accused No 2 in the name and style of M/s. Ankura Corporate Solutions Private Limited with its office in Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad that they are engaged in the business of trading and investments in the share market and on the sums deposited with them promised regular returns lnfluenced by such offer' lhe de facto complainant visited the corporate office and under the ) 2 ,\ 7R,/ Crt.PNo. i0!1 ol 2025 I allurement of the accused invested Rs.32,00,000^. However, the promised returns were neglected. On confrontation, the accused No.2 had executed hand loan agreement for about Rs.26,00,000/- and issued cheques for that amount and stopped payments of returns by 05.11.2023. Upon enquiries lhe de facto complainant realised that the company is bogus one, created to defraud innocent gullible investors across the country. ln similar lines another investor Mr.Druppy Yerra reported defrauding him to the tune of Rs.3,77,75,4241. Thus the crime was registered against the corporate entity and its directors.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though the petitioner No.2 is not arrayed as an accused, his name was referred in the remand report. Further the petitioners were falsely implicated only on the confessional statement of the accused No.1 which is ex facie inadmissible evidence and the investigation has been completed. however charge sheet is not filed. Further, earlier the petitioners had approached this Court vide Criminal Petition No.1 1 916 of 2024 wherein ordered for issuance of Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 with a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer on or before 15.10 2024. However, due to health reasons the petitioners could not avail that remedy and now they are ready to appear before the investigating officer. Thus prayed for issuance of similar order.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners after lapse of six months came up with this petition for the i I I I i I I I i I i I I 3 N'n{,/ Crl.P.No. 5021 of 2O25 Selfsamereliefwhichwasgrantedearlier.Thatapart,tosubstantiateill health, the petitioner No.1 annexed the outpatient chit dated 29 '09 2024 issued by Omega Hospitals, Karimnagar' By the date on the outpatient prescription it is clear that it was prior to the date of earlier order in the criminal petition. Thus the petitioners pleading lacks bona fide as such granting selfsame relief in successive criminal petition is not maintainable' Thus prayed for dismissal of the petition' I have perused the materials on record' 7 . 8. By the pleadings it is clear that the petitioners have earlier filed Criminal Petition No.11916 of 2024 and a coordinate bench of this Court on considering the merits directed the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer and directed for issuance of Section 35(3) of BNSS'

2023. Admittedly, the petitioners did not appear before the investigating officer. The reason offered for failure in following the direction is the health condition during the period For the reasons best known ' the petitioners have placed the outpatient chits issued by Omega Hospitals' Karimnagar which was prior to the date of earlier criminal petition Even that prescription is not making out any serious medical issue of the petitioner No.'1 . That apart, no reason is offered as to why the petitioner No.2 did not appear before the investigating officer' Further the accusation against the petitioners are relating to a financial fraud and as on the date the charge sheet has not been filed lt is also not clear' whether the petitioners are on bail or absconding the judicial process ln \ I t- 4 N]R,/ Cr/.P.No. 1021 o;[2025 view of these circumstances, this Court finds no merit to entertain this petition.

9. For the afore-noted reasons, this petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed I To, //TRUE COPY// ECTION Sd/-MOHD.ISMAIL GISTRAR UTY RE -t OFFICER I

1. The Xll Additional Chief tr/etropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, INSP ADMIN (DD) Police Station, Hyderabad District

3. One CC to SRl. Bala Murali Y Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC to Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. Two CD Copies PSNR./PSL , ?, Ir-iE s I'4 o f, o 'v .t_ tl 7 JUL 2025 ),

4..;-., ) '.1 ,f HIGH COURT DATED:10/04/202s ORDER CRLP.No.5024 of 2o25 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED. g /z 5 // b