The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Mallepally Dhanalaxmi,, Wo [\il Veera Reddy, a 9-55, Laxminagar Colony, Opp. BC Hostel, Kothapet, Reddy District-500035 s S ed major, R/o H.No.11- aroornagar, Ranga ,..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 quash the proceedings in Cr. No. 847 of 2025, d1.01109/2025 of Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Ranga Reddy District l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein in Cr. No. 847 of 2025, dt.01/0912025 ot Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, pending the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitron and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C S N RAJU ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. M. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respndent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA E,I,VI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14065 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed by the petitionen': ;cused No.1 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanl la, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023 ) seeking quashment of proceed r gs in Crime No.B47 of 2025 on the file of Chaitanyapuri Police St :tion, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences under Ser t cns 318 (4), 316 (2) and 351 (2\ rlw.3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sani ta, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 5 r/w. 3 of The Telangana 'rotection Of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 19! ! (for short 'TSPDEFE Act')

2. Heard Sri C.S.N.Raj.u, learned counsel for he petitioner as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Ac: tional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner suhr rits that the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sec ions 318(4), 316(2), and 351(2) r/w. 3(5) of the BNS and Secticr 5 ri w. 3 of TSPDFE Act. He further submits that the allegation:, made in the complaint do not attract the said offences and that there is no element of cheating, as the petitioner never entr rtained any dishonest igtention. He further relied upon the de r I isior-r of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shailesh Kumar Singh alia:, Shailesh R. -," 2 Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Otherst. He further submits that the offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust are not made out against the petitioner herein. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted a copy of the instructions received by him, which disclose that Section 5 r/w. 3 of TSPDFE Act has been added to the present offences lodged against the petitioner. The instructions further disclose that, during the course of investigation, certain facts were unraveled, indicating that accused No.1 had lured the victims and collected amounts that were invested elsewhere in the purchase of plots. The investigation is still in progress. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. Since Section 5 of the TSPDFE Act is added in this case, it is pertinent to refer to said section which reads as follows: "5. Penaltv for default: Where any financial establishment defaults in the return of the deposit either in cash or kind or defaults in the payment of interest on the deposit as agreed upon, every person responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial establishment including the promoter, Manager or Member of the financial establishment shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh and such financial establishment shall also be liable for fine which may extend to rLtpees five lakhs." ' cnrMrNeL neetaL ruo.zr63720z: 3

7. Section 2c of the TSPDFE Act is extractel herein under for the sake of reference "(a) xxx (b) xxx (c) "Financial Establishments" /rears any [2rson or group of individuals accepting deposit under ao. scheme or arrangement or in any other manner bui loes not include a corporation or a co-operative societl twned or controlled by any State Government or tl t Central Government or a banking company as defrt d under clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regttl, tion Act, 1949.', B. The allegations leveled against the petitio" :r, as per the instructions submitted by the learned Additional Pubii ; Prosecutor, squarely fall within the definition of a deposit and z so that of a financial establishment. The truth or otherwise of thes,: allegations is a matter to be determined during trial. Since the all,,r, ations under Section 5 of TSPDEFE Act are also attracted, in :t, dition to the allegations under Sections 318(a), 316(2) and 351(2 t r/w 3(5) of BNS, there are no merits for consideration in the rr :lition. In the present case, the investigation has not yet been cornp eted. Hence, it would not be proper to interfere with the investigatiorr rt this stage.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is distni'; ,ed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall sta r d closed .l To, ASS I ;TANT R SD/- U,SUDHA STRAR SECTI OFFICER I 1 2 *ilY.fl:flt|,,fi :Y;i,-tr"?Xitgas The SHO Chaitanyapuri police Station, Ranga Reddy Drs rict istrate-cu m- rv AC J z I L B N as a r,

3. One CC to SRl. C S N RAJU Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. Two CD Copies Pk/psl \W \ HIGH COURT DATED:3011012025 CRLP.No.14065 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE CRLP I :\ a _-, \\ '-,,.. 0,i tr; itfr ''t l-,'/ '. lr\r. -* -'= =;--=':'' I {