##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.85 OF 2026

DATE :28 .04.2026

BETWEEN:

Thatikayala Moshe

…..Petitioner/Accused

And

State of Telangana and another

…..Respondents/

Complainant

: ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner

aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2025 passed in

Crl.M.P.No.505 of 2025 in SR.No.1693 of 2025 on the file of the

II-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI-Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppal at

L.B.Nagar.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of

an amount of Rs.47,378/- lying in his bank account, which was

frozen by the police through a requisition under Section 106 of

2

BNSS based on a false complaint lodged by one Maredu Prasad

before the Cyber Crime Authorities alleging unauthorized

transfer without his knowledge or OTP sharing. The petitioner

runs a shop under the name and style of JJ Internet Xerox and

Aadhar Mini ATM at Station Ghanapur for the past five years,

providing online services, job applications, lamination, spiral

binding and PAN card services, and is also certified by Indian

Institute of Banking and Finance and associated with AU Small

Finance Bank. On 22.07.2025 and 23.07.2025, an unknown

person approached him seeking cash of Rs.48,000/- citing a

medical emergency and requested his QR code; upon receipt of

Rs.47,378/- through PhonePe on 23.07.2025 at 1:54 PM from

the account of Prasad Maredu, the petitioner handed over cash

in good faith. On 25.07.2025, he came to know that his account

had been frozen. He submits that he had no access to the

complainant’s bank details, OTP, or account, and therefore had

no role in any alleged unauthorized transaction. He further

alleged that no FIR or crime number was registered till date, no

proper enquiry has been conducted, and no prior permission of

the Magistrate was obtained for freezing the account. The

petitioner requires the said amount for repayment of loans

obtained from UGRO Capital, has already submitted

3

representations to the police authorities regarding the false

complaint, and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation,

appear before the Court as directed, and produce the amount

whenever required.

3. The learned APP before the trial Court filed a counter

stating that, on 12.09.2025, a complaint was received from M.

Prasad alleging that on 23.07.2025 at about 1:55 PM, an

unknown person fraudulently transferred Rs.48,000/- from his

bank account through PhonePe/UPI without sharing any OTP,

pursuant to which a complaint was registered at NCRP Uppal

Police Station. During investigation, the complainant’s bank

statement was verified and it was found that the amount was

transferred to the petitioner’s account in Kotak Mahindra Bank,

treated as Layer-1 account, and therefore the said amount was

kept on hold. It is further contended that the petitioner

knowingly received the fraudulent amount without verifying the

source or identity of the remitter, indicating mala fide intention

for wrongful gain, and failed to follow applicable banking/RBI

guidelines requiring proper verification for high-value

transactions. It is also stated that if the account is de-frozen, he

may continue to facilitate similar fraudulent transactions;

hence, prayed the trial Court to dismiss the said petition.

4

4. The trial Court after considering the submissions of the

both parties dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same

this revision case is filed.

5. Heard Sri Jaswanth Singh Thakur, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent-State.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

the learned Magistrate erred in dismissing the petition for de-

freezing of the bank account without considering that freezing

the petitioner’s account without prior notice, without timely

intimation to the Magistrate, and without registr