IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

DATE: 18.12.2025

BETWEEN:

M/s. Essenn Infra township Pvt. Ltd

…..petitioner/accused

And

The Competent Authority, under Protection

of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999/

Deputy Commissioner of Police, CCS, DD, Hyderabad and others

…..Respondent/complainant

ORDER

This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the order dated

11.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.205 of 2024 in Crime No.358

of 2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed Crl.M.P.No.205 of 2024 under Section 9 of the TSPDFE Act seeking permission to deposit the amount received from DFI Ventures Limited before the Court and to restrain the Government or competent authority from passing attachment orders. The appellant contended that pursuant to a memorandum of agreement for sale of plots situated in various survey numbers at Nadipinayakanhalli, Chikkaballapur District, DFI Ventures Limited had paid a sum of Rs.20,94,62,500/- out of the agreed consideration of Rs.47,17,50,000/-, but the transaction could not be completed due to reasons including acquisition of the land by the Karnataka Government, and therefore, to avoid further litigation, the appellant sought to deposit the said amount before the Court.

3. Respondent No.1, in its counter, submitted that investigation against DFI Ventures and its group companies was still pending and sought appropriate orders. Respondents No.2 and 3, along with respondents No.4 to 39, opposed the petition contending that multiple disputes between the parties were pending before the High Court of Bangalore, Commercial Courts and in arbitration, that the Court lacked jurisdiction, and that the amounts and rights of the parties were seriously disputed.

4. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, considering the pendency of civil, commercial and arbitration disputes, the unsettled rights of the parties, the absence of concrete proof regarding the actual amounts payable, and the ongoing investigation, held that it was not just or appropriate to permit deposit of the amount at that stage and consequently dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the present Criminal Appeal.

5. Heard Sri B. Rajeshwar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Sri P. Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1- State, V. Surender Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Court was contrary to law and the material on record and was liable to be set aside and that the trial Court had failed to properly appreciate the object and spirit of the Depositors Protection Act and had not considered the genuine intention of the appellant to avoid unnecessary litigation. He further submitted that the amount paid by respondents No.2 and 3 to the appellant was not in dispute and that the appellant had voluntarily expressed willingness to deposit the said amount along with agreed interest before the Court, but the trial Court had erroneously concluded, without valid reasons, that there was a dispute regarding the actual amount. He further submitted that the appellant had not received any money from respondents No.4 to 39 and therefore they had no locus in relation to the sale transaction between the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3, and that the proposed deposit was in fact intended to protect the interests of the depositors. He further contended that dismissal of the petition was not in the interest of any party and that continuation of litigation would prejudice the depositors and defeat the very object of the Depositors Protection Act. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel a