M/s. GTN Engineerilng (I) Ltd., (formerly M/s. Perfect Knitters Ltd.,) v. The State of Telangana,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO

Judgment date: 2026-04-27

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-27. M/s. GTN Engineerilng (I) Ltd., (formerly M/s. Perfect Knitters Ltd.,) v. The State of...

Judgment text

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6355 OF 2026 Between: '1. M/s GTN Engineering (l) Ltd. , (formerly M/s. Perfect Knitters Ltd. ,), Rep. by its authorized representative Sri Mahendra Kumar Patodia, S/o. late Madanlal Patodia, aged 73 years, Occ: Managing Director of Petitioner, Plot No. 29, Nagarjuna Hills, Panjagutta, Hyderabad - 500 082 2. Sri lvlahendra Kumar Patodia, Sio. late Madanlal Patodia, aged 73 years, Occ: Managing Director of Petitioner No,'1, R/o. 8-2-333/164, Plot No. 145, Road No. 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034. ... Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor For Enforceament Directorate, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. 2. Telangana State Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its Environmental Engineer, B. V. Bhadra Girish, S/o. B. P.

Vithal, aged 55 years, Occ: Regional Officer-|, Sanga Reddy. ... Respondent 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 proceedings intiated against the Petitioner in SC No. 123 of 2025 (ECIR/HYZO/0612024) on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 at Nampally, Hyderabad) (Special Court constituted under Section 43( l ) of the Prevention of Money Laundering AcL,2002). l. A. NO: 'l OF 2026 Petition under Section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to return the passport bearing No. zA2631 10 of the Petitioner. l. A.

NO: 2 ()F 2026 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to stay all further proceedings in SC No. 123 of 202s (ECrR/HyzolO612024) on the fire of the Metroporitan sessions Judge, under the prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2o02 ar Nampaily, Hyderabad) (Speciar court constituted under section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2oo2) during pendency of the present writ petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri V Murari Manohar, lidvocate for petitioners the and sri D Narender Naik, the speciar pubric Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos 1 and 2. The Court made the following: ORDER -7 -7 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6355 o12026 Date:27. 04.

2026 Between M/s. GTN Engineering(I) Ltd and another ... Petitioners AND The State oflndia and another ... respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed bv the petitioners/accused Nos. I and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings in S. C. No. l23 of 2025(F. CIWHYZO/0612024) on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. Heard Mr. V. Murali Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Narender Naik, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. l and 2 3 With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the staqe of admission. 4. [,earned counsel lor the petitioners submits that petitioner No. I filed an application vide Crl. M. p. No. 2g4l of 2OZ4 in C. C. No. 192 of 2020 on the file of the leamed I Additional Junior CiviI . ludge-cum-. ludicia I Magistrate of Fir. st Cllass, Sangarec. ldy, seeking discharge. The learned trial Court, by order dated 22. 01.

2026, allowed the said application and discharged petitioner No. l for the offences under Sections24 and 23 of the Water (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 1g74, (for short 'WPCP Act') and Section l9 of the Environment (protection) Act, l9tt6, (for short,Ep Act,) and the said order has become flnal. Petitioner No. 2 was not made as an accused in C. C. No. l92 of2020; on the other hand, he has been implicated as an accused in the present complaint in the absence of any allegation. He furthcr submits that once petitioner No. l was discharged for the predicate ollence in C. C. No. l92 of 2020 by the Iearned trial Cor,rrt, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners in the pr4ent S. C. is a clear abuse of process of law. t. - 5. Leamed Special Public Prosecutor has not disputed about discharging petitioner No. I in C. C. No. 1 92 of 2020. 6.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioner No. 1 filed an application invoking the provisions of Section 227 of Cr. P. C. vide Crl. M. P. No. 2841 of 2024 in C. C. No. 192 of 2020, seeking discharge. The leamed trial Court, after considering the contentions of the respective parlies and upon perusal of the record, allowed the said application on 22. 01. 2026, and petitioner No. l was discharged for the offences under Sections 24 and 23 of the WPCP Act and Section 19 of the EP Act in C. C. No. 192 of 2020. Even according to the parties, the said order has beiome final. Once petitioner No. l was discharged for rhe predicate offences levelled against it in C. C. No. 192 of 2020, I implicating it in S. C. No. 123 of 2025 und,er the provisions of i Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002 I is not permissible under law.

It is also not in dispute that petitioner No. 2 was not made as an accused in C. C. No. 192 of 2020; hou ever, petitioner No. 2 has been made an accused in S. C. No. l23 of 2025. Wl. ren petitioner No. 2 was not made an accused in the predicate offence, implicating him as an accused in the present S. C. is also not permissible under law. 7. Hence. this Courl is of the view that continuation of the proceedirrgs against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of larv and the proceedings against the petitioners in S. C. No. 123 of 2025(ECIR/HYZ010612024) on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge under the Prevention of Money Larrndering Act (PMLA), 2002 at Nampally, Hyderabad are irereby quashed 8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. B.

REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// \ SEcTION OFFICER To, the Preventi on of Money Laundering The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, under Hyderabad(Special Court constituted under Act (PtvlLA), 2OO2 at Nampally, Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hydr:rabad. IOUT] 3. One CC to Sri V Murali Manohar, Advocate TOPUCI 4. One CC to Sri D Narender Naik (Standing Counsel For Central Govt) [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Sa/KA I HIGH COURT DATED: 2710412026 ORDER CRLP. No. €;355 of 2026 . .. -'ai:''. '-: -. :. . lja r li- ! ] o 4 \tr )yt fl t ,) ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION +,A et U Ll

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.