SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 58097

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
K. Shreya Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP 3640/2025



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVASRAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3640 of 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/accused No.17, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.11 of 2025 of Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and Section 5 of Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short ‘TSPDFEA’).

2.1 The case of prosecution in brief is that the de-facto complainant Sri Rohit Kumar Morla s/o Sudhir Kumar Morla, 30 yrs, r/o L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District has lodged a written complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad on 11.02.2025, stating that Falcon (M/s Capital Protection Force Private Limited) is engaged in Invoice discounting and functioning from 4th floor, Office No.405, HUDA Techo Enclave, High Tech City, Hyderabad, since 2015 onwards. Invoice Discounting is a financial service in which, company can raise funds by selling their invoices to third party financial institutions at a discount rate. The company offered the opportunity to deposit in M/s. Capital Protection Force Private Limited, under the pretext of providing funds for invoice discounting. The deposit was structured with the promise of returns basis on the invoices they discounted, with clear agreements that specified maturity dates for repayment, including interest.

2.2. It is further averred that there are different invoice plans such are 1) 45 days Invoice Plan with interest rate between 11%-12%, 2) 90 days Invoice Plan with interest rate between 16%-18% and 3) 180 days or more days Invoice Plan with interest rate between 20%- 21.95%. The company is having bank account No.111405002867 of ICICI Bank, Gachibowli Branch and Escrow Account No.777705844888 in the same bank. The depositors have to transfer their deposit amount to the said account through online. The deposit range is from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.5 Crores.

2.3 It is also stated that the de-facto complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.18,80,000/- by transferring from his account No.50100332666313 of HDFC Bank, Gandhi Chowk, Khammam. The parents and brother of the de-facto complainant have also deposited about Rs.58,500,000 in the same company by transferring funds from their bank account No.058810011181 of Bank of Baroda, Chakala Branch; account No.91301004678174 of Axis Bank, Rajamata Jijiya Bhai Road, Mumbai and account No.111405002867 of ICICI Bank, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. The de-facto complainant further stated that, in addition to his family members, some other depositors namely Mayank Candwani and 55 others have also deposited about Rs.21,81,83,120-00 by transfer from their individual bank accounts.

2.4 It is also averred that they have received monthly returns till 17.01.2025 and thereafter, no payment is received from the company. When the de-facto complainant and others visited the office of M/s. Capital Protection Force Private Limited, they found that the office is closed and nobody is lifting their calls. Thus, the management of M/s. Capital Protection Force Private Limited cheated the depositors and misappropriated their funds and caused wrongful loss to them. Hence the de-facto complainant requested to take necessary legal action against the accused persons. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.11 of 2025 was registered against the petitioner and other accused for the said offences.

3. Heard Mr. Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent person and she did not commit any offence as alleged against her, and she was falsely implicated in this case as accused No.17. There ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top