(Prayer: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to Set-Aside the Impugned Order passed in CrI.M.P.No.358/2026 in F.I.R.No.173/2024 of Cyber Crime P.S., dt/22-01-2026 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Visakhapatnam by Allowing the Crl R.C.. in the interest of justice and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of Judgment in CrI M.P.No.358/2026, dated 22-01-2026 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Visakhapatnam. before this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of the main CrI. RC and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of the operation of the Impugned Order passed in CrI M.P.No.358/2026 in F.I.R.N0.173/2024 of Cyber Crime P.S., dt/22-01-2026 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the main Criminal R.C., and pass

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to Set- Aside the Impugned Order passed in CrI M.P.No.351/2026 in F.I.R.No.173/2024 of Cyber Crime P.S.,dt/22-01-2026 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Visakhapatnam by Allowing the Cri R.C., n the interest of justice and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of Judgment in CrI M.P.No.351/2026, dated 22-01-2026 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Visakhapatnam. before this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of the main CrI. RC and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to STAY of the operation of the Impugned Order passed in CrI M.P.No.351/2026 in F.I.R.N0.173/2024 of Cyber Crime P.S.,dt/22-01-2026 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the main Criminal R.C., and pass

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to Set- Aside the Impugned Order passed In CrI M.P.No.355/2026  in

F.I.R.No.173/2024 of Cyber Crime P.S.,dt/22-01-2026 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Visakhapatnam by Allowing the Crl R.C., n the interest of justice

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of Judgment in CrI M.P.No.355/2026, dated 22-01-2026 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Visakhapatnam. before this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of the main CrI. RC

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of the operation of the Impugned Order passed in CrI M.P.No.355/2026 in F.I.R.No.173/2024 of Cyber Crime P.S.,dt/22-01-2026 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the main Criminal R.C.)

Common Judgment:

1. The present Criminal Revision Cases have been filed, challenging the Orders dated 22.01.2026, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in Crl.M.P.Nos.358, 351 and 355 of 2026 in Cr.No.173 of 2024.

2. Since the subject matter of these cases are one and the same, at the request of the learned counsel on both sides, these Criminal Revision Cases are heard together and passed the following Common Judgment.

3. Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.3 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the defacto complainant lodged a report stating that approximately one month prior to filing the complaint, he became acquainted with Gampa Iswarya and her parents through his marketing associates, namely Charles and Vamshi. They represented that they would sell USDT (Tether cryptocurrency) worth ₹50,00,000/-, and believing the said representation, the complainant entered into the transaction. In connection with the said transaction and for the purpose of his business, 57,462 USDT was transferred. Thereafter, he was instructed to travel to Indonesia, where he was directed to transfer additional amounts. Despite complying with the instructions and transferring the amounts as demanded, the promised USDT was not provided. When he attempted to contact Charles and Vamshi, they did not respond. Upon contacting Gampa Iswarya, she advised him to return to India and assured that the money would be provided upon his return. Acting on the said assurance, he returned to India; however, instead of fulfilling the promise, the accused demanded an additional sum of ₹3,00,00,000/-, which led to the registration of the crime in Cr.No.173 of 2024 for the offences punishable under sections 319(2), 318(4), 335, 340(1) of BNS and Section 66-D ITA-2000-2008.

5. The Petitioner herein is Accused No.3 in the above crime. The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, upon receipt of information regarding fraudulent transactions in different bank accounts in connection with Crime No.173 of 2024, filed Crl.M.P. Nos.358, 351 and 355 of 2026 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, seeking custody of the amounts involved. The learned Magistrate, vide orders dated 22.01.2026, allowed the said petitions and granted custody of the amounts for giving the amounts to the victims. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present Criminal Revision Cases are filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are illegal and against the principles of natural justice. He submits that no notice was issued to the affected parties or accused including the petitioner/Accused No.3 and no opportunity was given to them to file objections or to put forth their case before the orders were passed in Crl.M.P. Nos.358, 351 and 355 of 2026. He further submits that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned orders only on the basis of an office note put up by the concerned Court Superintendent, stating that petitions were filed to give custody of the amounts to the victims on execution of bond. Without conducting any enquiry, without hearing the petitioner, and without giving detailed reasons, the learned Magistrate passed the orders allowing the petitions. Therefore, the learned counsel finally submits that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as they were passed without giving notice or an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the impugned orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate are legal and valid. She further submits that the amounts in question are related to fraudulent transactions and were required to be safeguarded and returned to the victims at the earliest. She finally submits that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

8. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material on record, this Court finds that the impugned orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be sustained. The record shows that no notice was issued to the petitioner/Accused No.3 or other accused, nor was any opportunity given to them to file objections or be heard before passing the orders in Crl.M.P. Nos.358, 351 and 355 of 2026. The orders were passed solely on the basis of an office note submitted by the concerned Court Superintendent stating that the petitions were filed to grant custody of the amounts to the victims upon execution of bonds, without any independent discussion or reasoning by the learned Magistrate. When an order affects the rights of a party, the principles of natural justice require that notice be given and a reasonable opportunity of hearing be afforded. Since this was not done, the impugned orders are vitiated.

9. Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. The impugned orders are hereby set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to consider these petitions afresh, after issuing notice to all parties, provide them a fair opportunity of hearing, and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.