The High Court · 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 quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Metropolitan Session Judge in Crl.R.P.No.66 of 2025 in C.C. No. 10684 of 2023 on the file of the Xllth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad and consequently direct the ACP, PS CCS DD, Hyderabad to de- freeze the petitioners Current Bank Account bearing A/c No. 50200028398822 at HDFC Bank, Branch Fergusson College Road, Pune Maharashtra. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C rlw 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Order dated 25.08.2t025 passed by the Metropolitan Session Judge in Crl.R.P.No.66 of 2025 in C.C. No. 10684 oI2O23 on the file of the Xllth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Shaik Muhammed Abed, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA cRr ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 25.08.2025 passed in Cr.R.P. No.66 of 2025 in CC No.10684 of 2023 by the Xll-Additional Chief Metropolitan tMagistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for defreezing his account was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Shiak Muhammed Abed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the course of investigation in the crime, the account of the petitioner was freezed by the lnvestigating Agency and that the petitioner has filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No.4933 of 2024 in CC No.10684 of 2024 before the Xll-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad and that the said petition was dismissed, against which he fited a revision yrde Crl.R.P. No.66 of 2025 before the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the same is also dismissed by the revisional court. He further submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence and that he is a partner of accused No.4 \ \t I 2 EfD,J Crl.P. No-11726 ol 2025 Company and that accused No.4 is also not involved in the offences alleged by the de facto complainant. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not received any amounts from accused No.1 and that freezing the account of the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law and once the account of the petitioner is freezed, his business would get hampered and that the revisional court has committed an error in dismissing the petition of the petitioner and prayed to set aside the impugned order and sought a direction to defreeze the account of the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are concurrent findings of the trial court and the revisional court and both the courts have dismissed the petition by recoding sound reasons. He further submitted that the prosecution could collect the ample evidence to show that accused No.4 has received the amounts from accused No.1, which are the proceeds of crime and that the petitioner is the beneficiary and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record

6. A perusal of the charges sheet discroses that the accused No.4 company i.e. M/s. lP Express cargo is shown to be / i i.i / 'r' aJ EfD,J Ctt.P. No.11726 ol 2025 represented by one lrfan Kachalia, petitioner herein, but in the petition filed by him in crl.R.P., it is shown that he is representing himself as the Sole Proprietor of Sama Distributors. lt is contended by the prosecution that accused No.2 representing accused No.1, conspired with accused Nos.3 to 5 and extracted the amount to an extent of Rs.4,15,35,000/- from the company of the de facto complainant under the guise of delivery of 4250 Samsung mobile phones. After accepting the payment, they evaded delivery of the said mobile phones and further have conspired with accused Nos.6 to 12 and diverted the amounts for their personal benefits. lt is also revealed from the charge sheet that the de facto complainant has transferred the amounts to the accounts mentioned in the charge sheet and therefore, the petitioner cannot say that the said accounts are not related to the alleged transactions. The recitals of charge sheet further point out that the statement of account pertaining to the petitioner herein was also collected by the investigating agency and have ascertained that the proceeds of crime were deposited into the account of the petitioner herein also and thus, the account of the petitioner was freezed, therefore, defreezing the account during the pendency of the investigation is not just and proper. l'{ence, the trial court as well as the revisional court have rightly dismissed the 4 ETO,J Crl.P. No.14726 of 2025 petition filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition lacks merit and therefore, the same is liable tobe dismissed.

7. ln the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// RANI T REGI OFFICER To,

1. The Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nam 2. The Station House Officer, EOW Team-Vl, CCS, DD, Hyd Police Station, ly, Hyderabad Hyderabad

3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Shaik Muhammed Abed, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ABK/PSL r' HIGH COURT DATED: 2511112025 //t ( ORDER CRLP.No.14726 ot 2025 () ( * rlE't TaS OO JAN 2026 f2 7 a, DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETTTION w