THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1713, 1916, 1917 and 2441 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.6, 3, 1 and 5 respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2925 of 2025 on the file of the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, arising out of Crime No.24 of 2022 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under Section 420 r/w. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Since all the four criminal petitions are arising out of C.C.No.2925 of 2025, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

3. Heard Mr. V.Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.Ayesha Saba, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.1916 and 1917 of 2022, Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned counsel representing Mr. T.S.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.1713 and 2441 of 2022; Mr. V.T.Kalyan, learned Special Public Prosecutor representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for unofficial respondent and Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

4. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 are the Companies. The petitioners-accused Nos.5 and 6 are the practising Company Secretaries/ Chartered Accountants looking into the affairs of petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 1 Companies, respectively.

5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant, who is the Registrar of Companies (ROC), lodged a complaint stating that in collusion with Chinese fraudsters, accused Nos.4 to 11 have opened virtual Companies-accused Nos.1 to 3 by providing false information and also opened bank accounts in the name of the Companies. The accused Nos.4 to 7 have certified/signed the incorporation documents. All the accused in the crime have induced the lower and middle class people in the name of instant loan mobile apps by deducting high interest @ 36% per annum and processing fee of 23.6%. During the course of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has visited the registered Offices of accused Nos.1 to 3 Companies and found that the said Companies are not operating at the addresses mentioned in the ROC.

6. Basing on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.24 of 2022 was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 r/w. 120-B of IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (for short ‘I.T. Act’). During the course of investigation, as it was found that the lease/rental agreements which were submitted by the accused before the ROC are genuine, the offences under Sections 465 and 468 of IPC and Section 66-D of the I.T. Act are deleted. It was further found that the accused are frequently changing their addresses. Even after entering into the agreement, since the office was not opened by the accused, charge sheet was filed against them for the offences under Section 420 r/w. Section 120-B of IPC. The same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.2925 of 2025. Since accused Nos.2 and 10 are absconding, investigation against them is pending and separate charge sheet will be filed against them as and when investigation will be concluded against them.

7. Following are the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners:

7.1. The petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. They are in no way concerned with the offences alleged. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 are the domestic Companies, which have been incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act’). The accused Nos.8 and 9 are serving as common Directors of both the Companies. The said Companies were engaged in the business of providing technical services and assistance to NBFCs and they do not provide loans on