THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.291 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Dis.No.4844 of 2024 in FIR No.1846 of 2024 by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Dis.No.4844 of 2024 was filed under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking refund of a frozen amount in connection with Crime No.1846 of 2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act. The trial Court, by order dated 20.12.2024, allowed the said petition and directed the concerned bank to release the frozen amount to the account of the de facto complainant/victim. Aggrieved thereby, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

3. Heard Sri K. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the de facto complainant is claimed to be the victim, the frozen amount was received from the accused into the petitioner’s account. He further submitted that the petitioner had already delivered goods to the accused, and therefore, the amount rightfully belongs to him. He further contended that the order was passed by the trial Court without hearing the petitioner, and thus, his request is two-fold: firstly, to defreeze the said amount, and secondly, to set aside the impugned order on the ground that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the trial Court.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that as no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the order, the matter may be remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration after hearing both parties.

6. In light of the submissions made by both learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the primary grievance of the petitioner is that he had already delivered the goods to the accused, and the amount transferred was towards the said transaction. The petitioner claims a rightful entitlement to the said amount. Since the trial Court passed the impugned order without issuing notice or hearing the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to remand the matter to the trial Court for considering afresh after hearing both sides.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Dis.No.4844 of 2024 in FIR No.1846 of 2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties, and to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE K. SUJANA Date: 02.07.2025 SAI