The High Court · 2025

Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana. 2 U.Raghu Ram Sharma, S/o. U.Venkateshwar Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Officer on Special Duty, R/o.H.No.402, Panchavati Residency, Mansoorabad, Rangareddy District, TS. .Respondent 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 Order dt.3010712025 passed by the Hon'ble Xll Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.2087 of 2025 in Cr.No.67 of 2025 and consequently direct the learned Xll Addl. Chief Judiclal Magistrate, Hyderabad, to inturn direct the Respondent Police to unfreeze the account of the Petitioner and to release the amount freezed in Cr. No.67 ol 2025 on the file of Respondent No.2 Police Station, towards the interim custody of the Petitioner pending disposal of Cr.No.67 ot 2025. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Clminal Petttion, the High Court may be pleased to direct the learned Xll Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, to inturn direct the Respondent Police to unfreeze the account of the Petitioner and to release the amount freezed in Cr.No.67 of 2025 on the file of Respondent No.2 Police Station, towards the interim custody of the Petitioner pending disposal of p resent quash petitio n. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: f 1000 OF 2025 Between: Kunduru Vennela Reddy, D/o.K.Shankar Occ.Pvt Employee, R/o. H. No.2-3-926, Nagole, Hyderabad, Telangana. Reddy, a11ed Plot No.36/A, about 35 years. Arunodayanagar. AND 1 2 The State of*Telang_ana, Through Central Crime Statior p.S., Hyderabad, TS, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana ! RrS^[y Ram Siarma, , S/o U.Venkateshwar Rao, aged about 45 years, Occ. Officer on_Special Duty, R/o H.No.402, Panchavati Residency, lr,4ansoorabad, Rangareddy District, TS . Petitione r/Acc used ... Res pondent Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that lr the circumstances stated n the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to quash the Order dt.301}712025 passed by the Hon,bte Xll Addt. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M,P.No.2086 of 2025 in Cr.No.67 of 2025 and consequently direct the learned xll Addl. chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, to inturn direct the Respondent Police to unfreeze the accounts of the Petitioner and to release the amount freezed in cr.No.67 of zo25 on the file of Respondent No.2 Police station, towards the interim custodv of the petitioner pending disposal of Cr No.67 ol 2025. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that irr the circumstances stated in the /lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitior-, the High Court may be pleased to direct the learned Xll Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, to inturn drrect the Respondent Police to unfreeze the accounts of the petitioner and to release the amount freezed in cr.No.67 of 2025 on the file of Respondent No.2 Police station towards the interim custody of the Petitioner pending disposal of the present q uash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tre A/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing tne arguments of Sri C.H Jayakrishna, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Fiespondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER !* I i I I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.11044 and 11000 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 3007.2025 in Crl M.P No.2087 of 2025 in Cr.No.67 of 2025 passed by the learned Xll Additional Chief Judicial t\Iagistrate, Hyderabad (for short "trial Court").

2. Heard the submissions of Sri C H.Jaya Krishna, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the petitioner is neither the accused nor a suspect, but his account has been freezed by the prosecution and that the petition filed for defreezing the account was dismissed by the trial Court which is not proper. The trial Court has not assigned any reasons to dismiss the petition. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the orders and defreeze the account of the petitioner herein.

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has opposed submitting that the transactions worth Rs.1 7,00,000/- are shown in the account of the petitioner herein. The trial judge has given proper -w 2 reasoning observing that the prime accusect Mr.Oduri V. V \ Satyanarayana received an amount of Rs.gO lakhs from the victim and out of which an amount of Rs.'l 7 lakhs was diverted to the current accourrt of a suspectKunduru Vennella Reddy on the same day, out of whrch again an amount of Rs.6 lakhs ,ruas transferred to the petitioner account on the same day. Therefore, by recording the said observation, the trial Court has dismissed the petition. Hence, there are no merits in this petition, Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition by upholding the orders of the trial Court 5 6 Perused the record The petitioner herein is neither the accused nor a suspect as argued by the petitioner counsel. But the record reveals that prime accused is facing allegations that he received Rs.B0 lakhs on 15,04.2025 from the alleged victim and that he has deposited Rs i T lakhs to Current Account No.50200006056g92 which pertains to the account of a suspect and that from the said account, another amount of Rs.6 lakhs were transferred to the petitioner account. lt is further revealed that the account of the petitioner is freezed by the investigating agency under the provisions of Section 102 of Cr.p.C as a part of investigation. The investigation is still ln progress. lt is alleged that the crime amounts are transferred to the account of the ;==;-=-1F '/,. _t"',? 3 petitioner. Therefore, the defreezing of petitioner account is not proper at this stage. Hence, it is opined that the orders passed by the trial Court are justified. Therefore, the present petitions lacks 7 . closed ln the result, these Criminal Petitions are dismissed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand SD/- A.JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR ASSI //TRUE COPYI/ ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally Hyderabad ; inl ilil;tb*t Cnier Judiciat Masistrate' uy!9goaa 3 The Station House OtlcJi'-Saitaoio potice Station Hvderabad 4. The Station House ottice'r' E3"i'"it'i*" 6'ation Potice Station Hyderabad 5. Two CCs to Public p'ot""'io-t' irGr' Cour.t for the State of Telangana at 6 o#;;"i" .dric i .lavarristrna' Advocate [oPUCl 7. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUT] ABK/PSI- Yk HIGH COURT DATED: 1110912025 ORDER CRLP Nos: 11044 & 11000 OF 2025 I ,4 /,...' r,\ i t 0 4 il[l/ 'itfr DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS 10 .re Yk- o 6,ot*