Disposed

Kishore Singh Rajpurohit v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Sept 2025CRLP/5977/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition seeking quash of a Sessions Judge order setting aside the Magistrate's direction that respondent No.2 deposit Rs.19,50,000 seized in a hawala-related case. With counsel's consent, the Court directed respondent No.2 to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.19,50,000 to the credit of the Crl.M.P. within two months, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.19,50,000 to the credit of Crl.M.P.No.1328 of 2024 in Crime No.502 of 2022 before II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate within two months.

Kishore Singh Rajpurohit Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5977 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kishore Singh Rajpurohit, (A.2), S/o Jay Singh, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 5-1-269/8, Jambagh, Hyderabad

¶8

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court, Hyderabad. Through Afzulgunj Road Police station, Hyderabad

¶11

Jog Singh Raj Purohit, S/o Hemraji Raj Purohit, Aged 57 years, Occ Proprietor of RJ Steel, Jambagh, H yderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS/REV PETITIONER

¶13

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the order dt. 3'1-01-2025 in Crl.R.P.No. 236 of 2O24 on lhe file of Sessions Judge, Hyderabad filed against the order dt. 25-11-2024 in Cd.M.P.No, 1328 of 2024 in Crime No. 5O2 of 2022 on the file of ll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad and grant interim custody of Rs.19,50,0001 which was seized from the Petitioner/A.2 in connection with the said Crime to the Petitioner

¶14

LA. NO:^'l OF 2025

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dt. 31-01-2025 in Crl.R,P.No. 236 ol 2024 on the file of Sessions Judge, Nampally Hyderabad pending disposal of the CRL.P

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S GANESH, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K L B Kumar for the Respondent No.2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

I I

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5977 of 2025

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This crimina-l petition is filed seeking quash of order dated 31.01.2025 in Cr1.R.P.No.236 of 2024 on the file of Sessions Judge, Hyderabad against the order dated 25.1L.2O24 in Cr1.M.P.No.l328 of 2024 in Crime No.5O2 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad which directed respondent No.2 to deposit an amount of Rs. 19,50,000/-.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Crime No.502 of 2022 dated 22.10.2022 was registered on the Ille of Afzalgunj Police Station under Section lO2 of Code of Criminal Procedure('Cr.P.C' for brevity), where the police have seized cash for a sum of Rs.42,O0,OOO/- from accused No. l, Rs.19,5O,OOO/-, from accused No.2, Rs.2,OO,OOO/- from accused No.3 total amounting to Rs.63,5O,0OO/- from Accused Nos. I to 3 in the presence of Panchas vide Panchanama where A1 has revealed that he 1S assisting to one Jog Singh who is running Hawala business and as per the instructions Kanthi LaI has to

¶25

¶26

receive and send the hawala money to the customers and also they have associated with hawala business persons like Kishore Singh and others, on 22.10.2022 at around 22.30 hours. A1 on instruction of Jog Singh received an amount of Rs.42,O0,OOO/- from Pep Singh in which Rs.4O,0O,OO0/- has to be handed over to Fareed and Rs.2,OO,00O/- to Sandeep Singh and Kanthi Lal also received an amount of Rs. 19,5O,000/- from Kishore Singh which he brought from Dilip. F\rrther on enquiry Fareed revealed that he came to collect cash of Rs.40,00,00O/from Kanthi Lal on the direction of his owner Md.Omer and also Sandeep revealed that he came to collect cash of Rs.2,OO,OO0/- on the directions of his friend by name Lateef. On further enquiry on question of any evidence^of having such huge amount with them, they were failed to produce proper documents and the said money has been seized by the police.

¶27

While investigation is pending, a writ petition is filed before this Court vide W.P.No.41666 of 2022 by^{one Jog} Singh Raj Purohit where this Court vide order^dated 16.11.2022 had passed interim direction in I.A.No.1^of

¶28

¶29

2022 dtrectrrg the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan t Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad to release the seized the cash to petitioner on the condition of petitioner furnishing security for a sum of Rs. 1,00,0OO/-, by way of Fixed Deposit. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.11.2022, petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 in the said writ petition and this Court has observed that there is a dispute regarding the ownership of the cash and this Court was not inclined to pass any orders in the said application. However, the petitioner is given liberty to file petition under Section 451 read with Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking release of an amount of Rs. 19,50,000/- before learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampally, Hyderabad. On such application being filed, the trial Court shall pass orders within a period of ten (10) days from the date of filing of such petition.

¶30

Accordingly an application was filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1328 of 2024 in Crime No.5O2 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad. The said Court vide its order dated 25.L1.2O24 has

¶31

¶32

directed respondent No.2 to deposit an amount of Rs. 19,50,000/- before the said Court by 30.11.2024, out of the claimed amount of Rs.63,50,O00/- as per the undertaking given by him at Para No.3 of petition in Crl.M. P. No. 1 67 8 of 2022 d,ated, O I . | 1.2022 and accordingly the petition was allowed on condition. Thereby challenging the said order the Cr1.R.P.No.236 of 2024 has been llled by respondent before learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the said Court vide its order dated 31.OI.2O25 has allowed the same by setting aside the order dated 25.11.2024 by giving various reasons. Aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal petition has been filed.

¶33

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court has rightly allowed the Crl.M.P.No. 1328 of 2024 by directing the respondent No.2 to deposit an amount of Rs. 19,50,000/- before the said Court. Brother of the revision petitioner has fiied application as such and the said application has rejected. Learned counsel would submit that material aspect of the case would only be decided by the Court during the trial, whether^the petitioner is entitled for the said amount or not can be

¶34

¶35

! I

¶36

decided only through trial court proceedings. He would also submit that it is admitted fact that even on the perusal of the FIR the said amount has been seized from the possession of the petitioner herein. The amount which has been seized from the possession of the petitioner cannot be ordered to have been given to the unofficial respondent. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court.

¶37

Sri K.L.B Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the invoices submitted by the petitioner are pertaining to La:<rni Vigneshwara Enterprises of D.R.Agencies and those invoices are not related to petitioner. He would further submit that even if the petitioner or his brother is entitled for any commission for the supply of cashew nuts, huge amount of Rs. 19,5O,OOO/will not be paid by anyone out of total supply of order worth of Rs.30,78,994 l- at d the same is not explained by the petitioner. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly allorved the revision petition by setting aside the order dated 25.11.2024 on the file of II Additional Chief

¶38

¶39

Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad and seek to dismiss the present criminal petition.

¶40

karned Assistant Public Prosecutor submit that investigation is under progress and the petitioners are not cooperating with the investigation and he shall submit that admitted crime has taken place on account of possession of money to an extent of Rs.63,5O,0OO/- which has been seized from the possession of respondent No.2 as well as other accused. He would seek to set aside the both orders passed by the learned tria-l Court as well as learned Sessions Court and directed to deposit the entire money to tJre custody of learned trial Court where the fact wiil be determined after conducting thorough tria1. The writ petition No.41666 of 2022 filed before this Court is still pending for adjudication.

¶41

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and at the request ald consent expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is directed to furnish bank guarantee to an extent of Rs. 19,5O,OOO/- to the credit

¶42

¶43

of Crl.M.P.No.1328 of 2024 in Crime No.5O2 of 2022 on the file of learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶44

With the above observations, the criminal petition is disposed of.

¶45

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if aly, shall stand closed.

¶46

SD/. P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

l.ThetlAdditionalChiefJudicialMagistrate,Hyderabad,HyderabadDistrict

¶51

One CC to SRI^{S GANESHAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶52

One CC to SRI^{K L B KUMARAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶53

Two CCs to Public^{Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶54

Two CD GoPies

VM/PSL

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1710912025

ORDER CRLP.No.5977 of 2025

¶60

"LHE Sa
i B JAil U026 z.

PATC

¶61

DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶62

I coda\ tr-"

Kishore Singh Rajpurohit v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Singh Rajpurohit v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss v. Akshaya S Jocelyn Vs Sri. Vankara Ramesh

Mohammed Ismail (Died as per LRs PP2 to 8) Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Annapurnamma Vs The State of Talangana and 4 others

Madagani Satyanarayana and 6 others Vs State of Telangana and 4 others

Sri.Pasunuri Praveen Kumar , Praveen Reddy and 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Smt. Jonnabhatla Indira Vs State of Telangana and 2 others