THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 19968 of 2007 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent – Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in summoning the writ petitioner to their office repeatedly for the purpose of investigating the case registered by them against the Manager of Vijaya Bank, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad as illegal and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the writ petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in principle. The case of the petitioner is that he is a businessman engaged in construction work, undertaking interior designing and execution thereof. He has specifically asserted that he has not involved in any criminal case, however, the CBI appears to have taken up a case for investigation against one Sri K. Devender Rao, Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank, a public sector bank of its Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad in the matter of sanction and disbursement of loans to 12 persons during the year 2003-04. The First Information Report in that regard was registered by the CBI on 4th January 2006 under Sections 120-B, 419, 420 and 471 IPC. and Section 13 (2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said Devender Rao was shown as Accused No.1. It was the case of the CBI that several housing loans have been sanctioned by the said Devender Rao for purchase of flats at Serilingampally in Ranga Reddy District and that the loan amounts were disbursed in two installments by way of demand drafts drawn in favour of M/s Saradhi Constructions and there are, in fact, no flats with the given numbers thereat and that the borrowers were not found living in the said building and no properties were found to be existing in the name of the borrowers. It was, therefore, suspected that the Branch manager, without proper care and consideration, has granted loans in favour of several unscrupulous persons, based upon certain fake and forged documents. In the process, it was construed that the bank has lost as much as Rs.90 lacs. The writ petitioner herein is not one of the accused or suspected persons mentioned in the said First Information Report, but however, the writ petitioner seems to have sought for sanction of personal loan from the very same branch where Sri K. Devender Rao was working. Therefore, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been repeatedly summoning the writ petitioner to their office for the purpose of investigation of the case against Sri Devender Rao. It is further alleged that in spite of his requests to leave him in the matter, no heed is paid. Hence, this Writ Petition. Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for CBI has filed a counter-affidavit in the matter, sworn to by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Hyderabad. It is submitted therein that the CBI Office has summoned the writ petitioner on two occasions with regard to the investigation of the crime registered against Sri Devender Rao, the Branch Manager of Ameerpet Branch of Vijaya Bank, which is a public sector undertaking, and it is incorrect to say that he has been subjected to any harassment or victimization at the hands of the officers of the CBI. It was specifically asserted that during the course of investigation, the role of the writ petitioner in the commission of the offences by the said Devender Rao has come to light and it has also been established. It is further stated that the writ petitioner played a major role in securing sanction of 12 housing loans and he, in fact, acted as a middleman and collected a sum of Rs.3 lacs by way of demand draft bearing No. 816617, dated 12.10.2004 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Kalyan Nagar Branch, Hyderabad, which was encashed by him through his current account No. 73-155 of South Indian Bank Limited, Diamond Point Branch, Secunderabad. It was further alleged that the writ petitioner and another builder, by name Sri Nanda Kishore and Sri Devender Rao, Branch Manager, have acted together and sanctioned as much as Rs.90 lacs towards housing loans, based upon fake and forged documents. It was further alleged that the CBI has already filed a memo before the Hon’ble Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases on 09.10.2007 to add the writ petitioner as Accused No.16 to the case. It is further stated that to prevent further possible action against the writ petitioner, he has devised this method of approaching this Court. From the First Information Report, RC.2(A)/06-Hyderabad, dated 04.01.2006, registered by the CBI, involvement of 15 persons in commission of various offences was suspected. Sri K. Devender Rao, Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank, Ameerpet Branch was first of those suspected persons. Remaining persons were all shown as the persons to have got housing loan sanctioned by the said Devender Rao for the purpose of purchasing flats in Saradhi Residency, Survey Nos. 203/1, 204, 205 and 206 situated at Madeenaguda, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The various amounts of loan sanctioned in their favour and those relevant particulars have all been mentioned therein. Admittedly, the First Information Report did not contain the name of the writ petitioner. It would be a different matter for the respondents to take recourse to law and secure appropriate measures for investigating any crime. As part of investigation, while they are at liberty to cause enquiries and interrogate the persons, who are known to be reliable with regard to the information relevant to the crime, but however, such persons should not be harassed and subjected to hardship in the name of collecting the material. It is altogether a different thing for the respondents to realize that someone else other than those named in the First Information Report was also involved in the commission of any crime. In such circumstances, they must take recourse to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and appropriately proceed in the matter thereof. Since the Superintendent of Police of the 2nd respondent has already stated that an appropriate memo has been moved before the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, it is for that Court to regulate the proceedings. Suffice it to observe that so long as the writ petitioner herein is not suspected or arrayed as an accused person, in committing any crime, he shall not be subjected to any harassment or hardship in the name of undertaking investigation into a crime registered against someone else. Subject to what has been stated supra, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 13th November 2009 ksld