The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad

2. Harikrishna Yakkaluri,, S/o. Venkata Narayana Y, Aged 36 years, Occ not known to petitioner, R/o. H.No. S1, Narne Residency, Plot No. 28, Pragathi Golden Hills, Pragathi Nagar ltlain Road, Hyderabad, Telangana 500090 ...RESPONDENTS/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 F|R/impugned proceedings in FIR No 2481 of 2025 on the file of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in FIR No. 2481 of 2025, on the file of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad., including arrest, appearance and attendance of any of the Staff / [/lanagement / Employees of the Petitioner Company, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition l.A. NO: oF 1t025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 i.e. Police Authorities to forthwith withdraw, receill, or rectify any adverse communication, intimation, or directive issued by then to the banking institutions which has resulted in the freezing or suspension of the Petitioner Company's bank accounts, and to ensure immediate restoration of tre said accounts to normal operational status This Pelition coming on for hearing. upon perusing the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Dr. RAVI KUIVIAR N, Aclvocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Additional pLtilic Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent none appeared for the Responderrt No. 2. The Court macle the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14461 OF 2025 DATE: 31-12-2025 Between: M/s. Aimlay Private Limited The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad and another ORDER: And . Petitioner Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused Company seeking to quash the proceedings against it in Crime No.2481 of 2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 66D of lnformation Technology Act.

2. Heard Dr. N. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State -r ETT,.J C I'.No.14461 o1 2025 l-earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter 2

3. is purely of civil in nature and that respondent No.2_de facto complaiinant is trying to convert the civil proceedings into criminal one through the present complaint. He further submitted that the petitioner-Company is a consultancy Company and the allegations made in the complaint do not attract the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. ln fact, the respondent No.2-complainant owes some dues to the petitioner_Company and to avoid the same, a false complaint is lodged against the petition,:r herein. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the p"esent crime against the petitioner herein.

4. Lrlarned Additional public prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner being a consultancy has taken amounts from respondent No.2- de facto complainant, but failed to provide him with adrrission into Ph.D. program, as promised by it. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to face the prosecution and that the prosecu:ion could also collect the bank statement to prove the offences alleged against the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss lhe Criminal petition.

5. Perused the record. J E'TD,J Crl.P.No.l446l of2025

6. The allegations point out that the petitioner runs a consultancy and that respondent No.2-de facfo complainant, who intended to enroll for a Ph.D. program, contacted the petitioner- Company and the total fee was informed to be around Rs.5,15,600/- and as per their instructions, the respondent No.2 has paid Rs.2,96,2191 towards Ph.D. service amount and Rs.85,5721 towards Scopus Research Paper. Subsequent to the said payment, in spite of repeated requests for over a year, the petitioner failed to provide him with admission confirmation or registration number or any official documents from the University. Again the petitioner-Company has demanded an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and has sent a WhatsApp message asking the de facto complainant to attend an examination without any hall{icket or proper registration details. Then, the de facto complainant grew suspicious about the legitimacy of the said process and lodged the complaint. The said allegations prlma facle point out the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. The record discloses that the prosecution could collect the bank statements to prove the alleged offences against the petitioner herein. The truth or othenrvise in the allegations and in the said statements need to be tested during the course of trial. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the de facfo :E 4 li )..r ('rl.|.\o. 1.146I ot tOt5 compl,inant has to pay amounts to the petitioner and to avoid the same, the de facto complainant has come up with the present complaint The said contention is also a triable issue. The investil]ation is still in progress. lt is not proper to interfere wrth the investigation process at this stage. Further, though the offenc€,s alleged against the petitioner are under Seclions 3i B(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338 and 3a0(2) of BNS and Section 66D of lnformertion Technology Act, the allegations prima facie do nol point or.rt any offence with regard to forgery. Once the offence under {iection 338 BNS is kept aside, all the other offences are punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is opined that the Criminal Petition can be disposed of directing the police to invoke the provisions under Section 35(3) of BNSS against the petitioner herein

7. Ar:cordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of directing the petilioner-Company, represented by its Director, to appear before the lnvestigating Officer concerned on or before 20 01 .2026 between 11:00 AIM and 5:00 pM, and in turn, the lnvestigating officer is directed to folrow the procedure raid down under Serction 35(3) of BNSS and the guidelines formulated by 5 ETD,J Crl.P.No.l446l of 2025 the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Biharl scrupulously and complete the investigation strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner is also directed to co-operate with the lnvestigating Officer and to furnish the requisite information and documents as and when required by him. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- B.G.VYJAYANTHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lX Additional Judicial [/lagistrate of First class at Kukatpally, Cyberabad. 2. The SHO Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad Commisionerate, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

3. One CC to SRI Dr. RAVI KU[\4AR N Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

5. Two CD Copies ,r*nrw ' (zor+) 8 scc 273 HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212025 I CRLP.No,14461 of 2025 t_) t * TI.IE S 14 0I tittB litrs *. CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISPOSED OF. 9,L