He also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Dayle De'souza v. Government of lndia, decided on

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court Through SHO PS Cybercrimes, Rachakonda.

2. Donthineni Sreelatha, Wo Donthineni Narsimha Rao, Aged. Housewife, R/o 17-1-382/R/83, APSRTC Colony, WaterWo Champapet, Hyderabad. 7 years, Occ Reservoir, ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO-COMPLAI NANT 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 of FIR No. 56912025 dated 0210512025, PS. Cyber Crimes, Rachakonda District, for the offences u/sec. 316(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338 BNS and Sec 66-C, 66-D lT Act, registered against the petitioners / accused 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 in FIR No. 56912025 dated 0210512025, PS. Cyber Crimes, Rachakonda District, for the offences u/sec. 316(2), 319(2),318(4), 338 BNS and Sec 66-C, 66-D lT Act registered against the petitioners herein, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition € ="-.y This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri RAGHU GURRAM ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr V.Jithender Rao Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and none appear for the Respondent No2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.l0867 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - accused seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.569 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Cyber Crimes, Rachakonda, registered for the offences runder Sections 316(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS, 2023") and Section 66-C, 66-D lnformation and Technology Act-2000-2008 (for short "lT Act").

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Raghu Gurram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the allegations of prosecution against the petitioners are false and that the company of the petitioners itself is the victim and that their company is into business of imports and exports of agricultural items and that no prima-facie offences are made out against the petitioners. The ingredients of the offences i.e., Section 316(2) does not get attracted as the petitioners are not entrusted with any property. He further submitted that Section 319(2) does not get attrid,ed as there is no allegation that the petitioners have ,*Y" : t I I t I I I I I l I I l I I I I 1 I I { I r ; a ! i 2 ET'D,J Crlp.No. I 0867_2025 committed cheating by impersonation. He further argued that there is no inducement made by the petitioners to attract the ingredients of section 318(4). He further argued that no aileged forgery is committed by the petitioners to attract the offence under Section 338 and further the ingredients of Section 66(d) under the ITA Act also does not get attracted against the petitioners. Therefore, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. Hence, prayed to quash the FlR.

4. The learned Additional public prosecutor has opposed submitting that the petitioners herein are the husband and wife, operating the account of Krushivaibhav Agro Farmers producers company Limited. The FIR is lodged against unknown persons and it is common under cyber crimes unless the investigation reveals, nobody knows the actual accused. Therefore, he stated that though the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, the investigation revealed the involvement of the petitioners herein. The statements of their accounts reveal that within one month, the balance in their Joint Account has risen from Rs.29 to that of Rs.1g crores and that during the said period, there are crores of transactions in the said account and the petitioners herein are hand in glove with accused No.1 in the said offence. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition. ./

5. Perused the record. 3 ETD,J Crlp.No.l0867 2025

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Petition No.315 of 2021, wherein the petitioners is the Managing Director and the Director of Finance of Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited. The amounts are transferred to the account of the company i.e., Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited that the de-facto complainant made a complaint against the petitioners without making the company as a party, which is contrary to the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. Thus, the proceedings were quashed against the petitioners vide its orders dated 22.03.2022.

7. He also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Dayle De'souza Vs. Government of lndia, decided on 29.10.2021, wherein it was held that the company being a juristic person cannot be imprisoned, but it can be subjected to a fine which in itself is a punishment. Every punishment has adverse consequences and therefore, prosecution of the company is mandatory. The quash petition filed by the petitioners in tlre said case was dismissed by the High Court, but when the matter was carried ln Appeal to the ' tr,tAN ulsc/ I o I 6r2o2t 4 ETD,J Crlp.No. 10867_2025 supreme court, the supreme court has allowed the Appear and quashed the proceedings against the appellant. By relying on these two decisions, the petitioner counsel has contended that the cotnpany is not made a party in this case and hence, launching of prosecution against these petitioners in their individual capacity is not just and proper and that the proceedings have to be quashed against them.

8. The statement of account pertaining to the Joint Account of petitioners herein in IDFC First Bank are also found in the file. The point argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that within one month, there were crores of transactions, finds support in the said documents. lt is alleged by the complainant that while browsing Facebook, she came across an advertisement and came into trading and getting attracted with the plan with a group tifled "ldeal lnvestment Guide-6" which already had 141 members, she joined the said group and has made several investments, but was unable to withdraw any funds, wherein she was told to pay 2oo/o as service charges for withdrawals, despite being no funds were released. Eventually, she realized that it was a scam when all withdrawal attempts failed, thus she lodged a complaint. The petitioners cqunsel submitted that no money has been transferred to the I ,/ 5 ETD,J Crlp.No.l0867_2025 personal accounts of the petitioners herein and as directed by the accused No.1 , money has been transferred to the accounts of his Nominees, Agents etc., that too upon the cancellation of the orders of Grapes. But the statement of account points out the atlegation that there were money transactions in crores of rupees during the relevant period in the joint account of the petitioners. The veracity of the witnesses and the strength of electronic evidence and its probative value needs to be tested during the course of trial. The investigation is still in progress. Therefore, it is not proper to interfere with the investigation process. Hence, the petition lacks merits.

9. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. No costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed AS SD/- U.SUDHA REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To,

1. The Specialjudidcial lVlagistrate of First Class.(Fryi.t-".) , Rangareddy-V nOOitionat Juilicial agistrale of First Class cum V AdditionalJunior Civil Judge RangareddY at L.B. Nagar

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Cyber Crimes , Rachakonda 3. One CC to SRl. RAGHU GURRAM Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies AG/PSL w HIGH COURT DATED:1 1109t2025 I ORDER GRLP.No.10867 ot 2025 ri i: s \,,^. /'.1. i. : lt:;ir; \ + 04 l,lrv 206 i.i -1 CRLP IS DISMISSED ,d4 H-. 6-t5r )5 q.