HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 05.11.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.2318 of 2022 in Cr.No.100 of 2022, on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2318 of 2022 before the trial Court under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C praying the Court to defreeze the account bearing No.002281300003993 of ‘YES’

bank for the purpose of operation of account.

4. The contents of the petition in nutshell is that basing on the report filed by one Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi, Police, Cyber Crimes registered a case in Crime No.100 of 2022 under Section 420 of IPC and Section 66-D Information Technology Act. During the course of investigation, the Police have freezed the account bearing No.002281300003993 of ‘YES’ bank of the petitioner, who is no way concerned with the crime of the accused. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has been doing business as “online payment gateway” which approves the transaction process between merchant and customer, and as such, the petitioner had no nexus with the accused and furthermore, the petitioner had not received any amount neither from the accused nor from the defacto complainant. Therefore, operation of account of the petitioner which was freezed by the Police is illegal and prayed to allow the petition.

5. Though the prosecution received notice before the trial Court, it did not file any counter. The trial Court after hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor dismissed the petition with a specific finding that the petitioner has not filed any document to substantiate that it has been doing business as a gateway for payment to the customers at the instance of merchant and as the investigation is in progress, it was not inclined to pass any orders, in favour of the petitioner.

6. Being aggrieved by the orders of the trial Court, the present revision is preferred. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that though the documents were filed before the trial Court, the said Court has not seen or verified the said documents and erroneously dismissed the petition mechanically. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent. Perused the record.

8. In order to support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on documents which were filed along with petition. On perusal of the documents, it is evident that the petitioner’s organization is dealing with the process of payment through “Online Gateway” which approves the transaction between the merchant and the customer and the petitioner company plays its role only in the “online transaction process”.

9. Admittedly, no complaint was made against the petitioner. The contents of the complaint disclose that one Vijaya Lakshmi Meriga is the complainant and the accused is the management of www.kings567 website. The recitals of FIR disclose that complainant stated that “her younger son by name Rohit Kumar moved to India from USA in September, 2019 and later started working for a software company in Hyderabad. In February, 2021 he received an anonymous call asking him, if he was interested in playing casino games, for which he responded positively. A URL of portal:www.kings567.com was shared to him and he created an account. In the beginning, he never won money and by the end of June, 2021, he was at a loss of Rs.8 lakhs. Thereafter, he started playing with higher stakes and by the end of August, 2021, he was at a loss of Rs.45 lakhs. On September, 2021, he won Rs.8 lakhs and withdrew the cash to his bank account and started depositing and withdrawing the money frequently. By the end of November, 2021, different account numbers