The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petiti,cner: SRI MANDALA NAGENDRA BABU Counsel for the Resprlndent No.1: Gp FOR HOME counsel for the Resprlndent No.2: sRr B.RAJESHWAR REDDy, Gp FoR counsel for the Respondent No.3: -- HoME(AP) The Court made the fcrllowing: ORDER t" 1 THE HOI\P BLE SRI IUSTICE P.SAM KOSFry HONOURAB EN IKO Writ Petition No-5591 of ?.O?.\ ORDER, (per Hon'ble SriJustice P.Sam Koshy) FIeard Mr. Mandala Nagendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.Rajeshwar Reddy, learned Govemment Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh appearing for respondent No.2.

2. The present writ petition is filed by the.'petitioner assailing the notice issued by respondent No.2 under Section 91 of the C-ode of Giminal Procedtxe, 1973 (Cr.P.C). 3 From the pleadings, it is reflected that respondent No2 received a complaint from the victim/ de faxo complainant in respect of some financial fraud committed to a tune of more than Rs.1.25 crores. In the course of investigation, respondent No.2 found that there seems to 2 be many other similar frauds that have been commrtted in the State ,:1r Andhra Pradesh. In the further cotrrse of investigation, they have also found that the proceeds of the said frtudulent traruactioru have got deposited in var-ious bank accounts, one of which happens to be that of the petitiorx:r i.e., Accottnt No.5020007530C'456, in which there was a transaction of Rs.+ lakhs wrth the transaction ID: BARBR52024073I00847144 and the date being 30.11.2024. It was in this conrexr that the notice under Section 91 C-r.P.C was issued to the petitioner. a Subsequentl'4 at the behest of respondent Nr.2- authoriry, the bank account of the petitioner that was being managed at responde:rt No.3- branch was freezed. The notice issued by respondent No.2 on 03.02.2025, which ha-s been wrongly mentioned as '03.02.2024', is what is under challenge in r;his writ petition. n 3

4. Today, when the mafier is taken up for hearing, leamed counsel for respondent No.2 submits that even before filing of this writ Petition, an FIR was Iodged in the instant case on 08.02.2025 and the said FIR was flowing from the complaint that was received from the victim'/ de facto complainant in respect of a financial fraud, during the course of investigation of which, the proceeds of such transaction were found to be deposited in the bank account of the petitioner herein' Leamed cd'unsel for respondent No.2- State of Andhra Pradesh, therefore' contended that the jurisdiction, therefore, for the petitioner is before the Ftrgh Court of Andha Pradesh and not before the High Court for the State of Telangana'

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2. funher contended that even otherwise, the writ petition' as such' may not be maintainable as the petitioner has an 4 altemative ,:fficacious remedy, under the provisions of G.P.C its,:lf, of approaching rhe concemecl jurisdictional Magistrate lor defreezing of the bank accounts. Even othernuise, he could have also approached for the same relief as sou;Jht for in the presenr writ petiti,cn before the jurisdictional F[gh Court i.e.,lfigh Court for the State of Andhra Praclesh as respondent No.2- authority at whose behest, notic,: under Section 91 Cr.p.C. u.as issued ah. "rrd subsequent IiIR which has been lodged on 0g.02.2025 is also located ir the State of Andhra pradesh. I

6. Leamecl counsel for the petitioner, jurisdictional point, submits that since the petitioner,s office ls lo<:ated tn the State of Telangana i.:., at Hyderabad ar:d the banl! sfiere the petitioner has account also being located the State of Telangana i.,,., Hlderabad, trris Crurt has the jurisdiction to resr rhe I a 5 veracrty of the notice issued by respondent No.2 under Section 91 G.P.C, even thoqh they are from a different State. 7 Yet another objection, which leamed counsel for the petitioner has raised, is that the Single Bench is seized of the matter. According to learned counse If petitioner, it is a subject rnatter, which otherwise has to be dealt with by the Single Bench in terms of the sining a affangement/roster.

8. As regards the second objection of the petitioner that the Single Bench is seized of the mattet the sitting arrangement so far as this Bench is concemed, all mafters pertaining to service and non-service, where both the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are involved, are to be listed before this Bench. This maner was earlier listed before a Single Bench, which, in tum, considering 6 the sining arrangement/ roster, ui de o rder dated 25.A2.2025, ordered tlrr: Registrar (|udicial-I) to verify as to rvhether the maner was to be listed before the Single Bench or Division Bench and the Registrar (|udicial-I), after scrutiny of the said matter, has ordered the matter to be listed before this Bench. In terms of the sitting arrangemen[ / roster, the matters, where both the States are parties, are t.o be listed before this Bench. Ve do not find any substance in the argument of the leamed counsel for the petition,:r that the present matter is one, which has to a be seized by the Single Bench. This obje'ction is, thus, ovemrled.

9. So far as the tenjtorial jurisdiction oi this Ccurt is concemed. we are of the considered opinion that considering the nature of allegations levelled and the pirua lacic nLaterial available with respondent No.2, based ./.,/ 7 upon E+rich the notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C, has been issued, coupled with the fact that subsequently an FIR has also been lodged flowing from the said complaint' even though the petitioner, at this juncture, may not be an accused in the said FI& nonetheless,, pima facie matenal shows that some amount of money has been transferred to the bank account of the petitioner. The matter is still being investigated by the Police of the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the said circumstances, petitioi'er has " remedy of approaching the concemed jurisdictional Magistrate.

10. So far as the grievance of the petitioner of his account being freezed Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 91 G.P.C is concerned, the petitioner also has a remedy of challenging the said notice issued by respondent No.2- authorfuy from the State of Andhra Pradesh before 8 I the concerred F[gh Court under the provisions of Cr.p.C i.e., before rhe Flgh Court of Andhra Pradesh Merely because the petitioner happens to be a resident in the State of TelangarLa or for that matter, the bank in which the petitioner holds the accounr is located in the State of Telangana, try itself should nor be a srrong ground for this Court ro invoke the writ jurisdiction for testing the veracityof the notice under Section 91 Cr.p.C, irr.r.d by respondenr l\o.2- authoriry which happens to be located I in the Stare of Andhra Pradesh. The petitionr:r will have to avail the appropriare remedy available to him by approaching the jurisdictional magisr.rate under Section 457 Cr.P.C/Section 503 Bharariya Nagarik Suralsha Sanhita.

11. In view of the same, we are not inclined to enrerrain the wnt peririon, at rhis juncrure, by reserwing the right of 9 the petitioner to avail the appropriate legal remedies open to him before the concemed jurisdictionai Magistrate or before the jurudictional F[gh Court as he thinls proper.

12. The \Writ Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of as not maintainable before this High Court. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitiors, pending if auy, stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- T.JAY ASSISfANT REGI REE RAR T SECTION FICER To Pradesh. Telangana, State of Telangana

1. Principal SecretaryHome Department , Secretariat building At Hyderabad, 2. lnspector of Police, Sarpavaram Police station Kakinada District, Andhra 3 Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Tarnka Branch, H.no 1271and '1273, Amity Ville, No 1211311270, No, beside Spencers, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, Telangana 500017

4. One CC to SRI MANDALA NAGENDRA BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Amaravathi. [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies K o PS BS HIGH COURT DATED:05103111025 ORDER WP.No.5591 o1'2025 CC TODAY q o o -s- , HE Sr41e 1 Y z (" .^5 0 7 llAR 2025 { -*^ \.: r 5;: ., ,-g!19- {) * DISPOSING OIF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COI}TS