THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Criminal Petition No.3755 of 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ‘the BNSS’), challenging the order dated 21.01.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 207 of 2024, arising out of Crl.M.P. No. 3269 of 2024 in Crime No. 223 of 2024 of Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Secunderabad, on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

2. I have heard Mr. V.V.S. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

3. The petitioner is the de facto complainant.

4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner/de facto complainant lodged a police report alleging that she had come across certain promotional posters on an Instagram account and, upon making contact, engaged the individuals behind the account to perform a puja for the improvement of her mother’s health. Initially, she transferred an amount of Rs.5,000. However, she was later informed that the ritual could not be performed due to a severe dosham (spiritual affliction) said to be affecting her mother. Subsequently, one of the individuals introduced an ‘Aghora Guru,’ who, upon further consultation, demanded substantial sums for performing the necessary rituals.

It is alleged that the petitioner was subjected to threats and coercion, including threats to her life, and was thereby induced to transfer a total sum of Rs.28,32,000 to the accused persons, both through bank transactions and in cash. Upon her complaint, and during the course of investigation, the police recovered Rs.20,00,000 from the possession of the accused and deposited the same before the Court. Whereupon, the petitioner filed an application seeking interim custody of the recovered amount. The trial court, however, dismissed the application, observing that ownership of the seized cash was unclear and that such determination ought to be made only during the trial.

Challenging that dismissal, the petitioner filed a revision petition.

The revisional court, upon examining the record, noted that there was clear documentary evidence establishing that the respondents had received Rs.11,60,000/- from the petitioner via RTGS transfers. The court found prima facie material supporting the petitioner’s claim to that portion of the funds and accordingly, partly allowed the petition by directing that Rs.11,60,000/- be returned to her.

5. Aggrieved by this partial relief, the petitioner has preferred the present petition, contending that the entire seized amount should have been returned to her, as it was wrongfully obtained through deceit and coercion.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had arranged the funds by pledging gold and disbursed the amount in cash to the accused. It was contended that, as the petitioner is presently burdened with accruing interest on the pledged gold, the entire amount seized by the police ought to have been released in her favour. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for indulgence of the Court and appropriate relief.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, based on clear documentary evidence showing bank transfers, the revisional Court had rightly considered and allowed the petitioner’s claim to that extent. As for the remaining portion of the amount, it was submitted that the same has been kept in abeyance pending completion of the criminal trial. Further pleaded that, in the absence of conclusive material regarding the remaining amount, the trial court's approach was reasonable and does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner’s interests. Nevertheless, in light of the petitioner’s pleadings, the learned Prosecutor fairly submitted that an appropriate order may be passed as deemed fit.

8. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel.

9. Th