THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5971 of 2011 AND I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN / AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.6280 OF 2011

COMMON ORDER:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Siddarth Luthra, & Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K.V. Raman, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. B. Rajeshwar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for the State of A.P. for respondent No.1, Mr. L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy & B. Shiva Ram Sharma, for respondent No.2 (Reserve Bank of India) and Mr. Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana for respondent No.3, and and also Mr. Aruna Kumar Vundavalli (Party-in-Person) as respondent No.4.

2. These are two criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) by the petitioners / accused Nos.1 & 2, seeking for quashing of the criminal complaint case No.540 of 2008, seized by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein the two petitioners have been made as an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 45S (1)(i) and 45S (1)(ii), read with section

58B of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934 (for short, the ‘RBI Act’).

3. The State of Andhra Pradesh (the combined as it then was) being the complainant filed a complaint case before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, against the two petitioners herein alleging that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 45S (1)(i) and 45 S(1)(ii), read with section 58B of the RBI Act along with other related offences under the RBI Act.

4. It was alleged that the petitioners have been receiving deposits from the general public in total violation of Section 45S of the RBI Act. The allegation was that the petitioners have accepted deposits from the general public contrary to the aforesaid provision of the RBI Act with effect from 01.04.1997. Further, it was also alleged that the petitioners have also failed in repaying the entire deposits by the 1^st April, 2000 as was the requirement of law then. Thus, establishing the offence under Section 45S of the RBI Act.

5. Subsequently, when the petitioners came to know about the filing of the complaint, they have filed criminal miscellaneous petition vide Crl.M.P.No.885 of 2010 under Sections 218 and 219 of Cr.P.C. to delist the inquiry of the petitioners under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. to any of the three offences cited. The said petition got dismissed on 01.07.2011, leading to the filing of the instant two criminal petitions.

6. Meanwhile, the State Government issued a G.O. vide G.O.Ms.No.801, dated 19.12.2006, appointing one Sri T.Krishna Raju, as the authorized officer under Section 58A of the RBI Act to take action against the petitioners in exercise of such authority. It is based upon this that the original criminal complaint case No.540 of 2008 came to be filed.

7. It is also pertinent to mention that the validity of G.O.Ms.No.801, dated 19.12.2006, was challenged in W.P.No.27065 of 2006, wherein, the interim prayer for suspension of the said G.O. was dismissed leading to the filing of the S.L.P.(C) No.2487 of 2007 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 20.04.2007, made it clear that there shall not be any freezing of accounts of the petitioners or attachments under The A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, the ‘Act of 1999’) subject to the directions given in the order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded the undertaking given by the counsel for the petitioners and others before the Supreme Court that necessary amounts will be deposited in the Escrow account periodically and as and when the FDRs are matured the amounts would be paid to the depositors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also directed the first petitioner to furnish