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) 58098

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 3637/2025



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVASRAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3637 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.10 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 Lalit Soni s/o Subhash Chand Soni, 45 yrs, r/o Yamuna Vihar, Delhi and four others have 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.3.83 Crores by transferring from his account No.007101508028 of ICICI Bank. The other depositors namely 1) Vandana Soni has deposited an amount of Rs.2.36 Crs. by transferring from her account No.3111718567 Kokak Bank, 2) Silpa Pappagari has deposited Rs.64,25,000/-, by transferring from her account No.124710100007143 Union Bank, 3) Daina Nazerath has deposited Rs.1.27 Crores from her account No.346501500043 ICICI Bank, 4) Dr.Sarvana has deposited Rs.2.55 Crores in the name of his mother namely Rajamani Palanippan and transferred from his account No.50100639388449 HDFC, Kethakkam Branch, Chennai. Thus, the total deposit amount comes to Rs.9,38,25,000/-.

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 namely Amardeep Kumar & Others. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.10 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.

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