THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.265 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 597 & 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) seeking quashment of the order dated 20.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.524 of 2025 in Crime No.1093 of 2024 of Cyber Crime Station, DD Hyderabad, on the file of XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr. S.Maruti Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the respondent No.2/ de-facto complainant filed a report stating that, he was attracted by the advertisement about the free Stock Market advice and training by Pantheon Ventures an UK Based Fund Manager, joined the programme. The organizers, after gaining his confidence, introduced an App based trading for bulk trade/IPO with promising returns. After investment of Rs.22,00,000/- they declined his request to exit and insisted for investment of Rs.30,00,000/- more. Thus realizing the deception lodged the Police Report.

4. During the course of investigation, as per National Crime Portal (NCRP), found that out of the amount deposited by the complainant, disputed amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was credited in Layer-2 of the A/c.No.353702010008014 of Union Bank of India, Sony Bazar, Dera Sheri Mandavi Chowk, Rajkot, Gujarat. Whereupon the NCRP freezed the bank account of the petitioner. The petitioner, who is the Bank account holder/third party filed impugned petition with a prayer to defreeze the account with a plea that freezing of the Bank account is causing hardship in carrying out his day-to-day business operations and even unable to meet daily expenses. Further offered that as the disputed amount is only Rs.1,00,000/- to freeze/create/lean to the extent of disputed sum and permit him to operate his Bank account. The trial Court though observed that Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to the account of the petitioner in Layer-2 transaction, approved the freezing of the Bank account. Thus, the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is even-handedly maintaining his account and he is no way involved in the offence or not a beneficiary from the de-facto complainant. However, as the investigating agency has pointed out deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-, freezing or creating lean to that extent and allowing the petitioner to operate the account would secure his business interests. Thus, prayed for necessary orders by setting aside the impugned order.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the digital transaction is evidencing as to deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- in the petitioner’s account. Thus to secure the interests of the parties, freezing the account, is justified.

7. I have perused the materials on record.

8. The Crime is pertaining to investment fraud. As per the Investigating Agency, the NCRP has confirmed that the de-facto complainant deposited amounts to several accounts and one such account is of the petitioner i.e. 353702010008014 of Union Bank of India and the disputed amount is of Rs.1,00,000/- as Layer-2 transaction. The petitioner’s pleading that he is no way involved in the offence and his account is with the balance about 38,00,000/- and requirement of the account and amounts therein for his business transaction in juxtaposition with the fact that there is no material referring to the involvement of the petitioner in the offence and the Bank account of the petitioner is not reflecting any other suspicious amount than the disputed amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, completely restraining the petitioner to operate his Bank account and freezing entire amount lying in the account is found excessive. Further, the prosecution record is not making out any other reasonable ground for continuance of complete freezing of the petitioner’s account. In the facts and circum