THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NOS.16026 OF 2009 AND 16065 OF 2009 Date: 07.10.2009 WRIT PETITION NO.16026 OF 2009:- Between:- S.Satyanarayana .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.16065 OF 2009:- Between:- Cheekuri Venkanna .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.16026 of 2009 is filed by one S.Satyanarayana and W.P.No.16065 of 2009 is filed by one Cheekuri Venkanna. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners sought writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in freezing the account of respondent No.4 in respondent No.5 Bank and thereby, returning the cheques bearing Nos.725851 and 725852, and 725831 and 725842 respectively, issued by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioners, vide cheque return memos dated 28.07.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct respondent No.5 to honour the said cheques. 2. In both the writ petitions, the respondents and the relief sought for are common. 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that respondent No.4 had started business of purchasing electrical, eletronics, other household articles and home appliances in the name and style of M/s.Peeshonu Marketing Private Limited, initially at Jammigada, Suryapet, Nalgonda District and thereafter, at Narsapur, Medak District. Respondent No.4 Company invited the customers for purchasing goods with attractive incentives to be paid to them out of the profits gained by the company and so the petitioners have invested certain amounts individually along with their friends and relatives with respondent No.4 company. Due to the complaints and Court cases instituted against respondent No.4 company, they were pressurized to repay their investments by the persons who have invested the amounts. They have pursued the matter with respondent No.4 and upon persistent demands, respondent No.4 ultimately issued cheques bearing Nos.725851 and 725852 for Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.2,72,500/- in W.P.No.16026 of 2009 and 725831 and 725842 for Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.2,96,500/- in W.P.No.16065 of 2009. When the said cheques were presented with the bank i.e., State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Suryapet, Nalgonda District for encashment, respondent No.5, returned the cheques with an endorsement “Account freezed by the Government of A.P., Police Department” vide cheque return memos dated 28.07.2009. The official respondents do not have any manner of authority or jurisdiction to freeze the account of respondent No.4 company. Even if there is any claim or complaint against respondent No.4, they are at liberty to initiate action against the management of respondent No.4 under Penal Laws and other relevant Criminal Procedure Code but the official respondents, by exceeding their jurisdiction and collusion with the local politicians, state level influence and the management of respondent No.4, freezed the account of respondent No.4 only to favour him from evading his liabilities and they are put to serious loss and hardship as the persons who have invested their amounts in respondent No.4 company through them, are pressurizing them to pay their amounts and thereby, causing severe mental agony and hardship. Hence, the present writ petitions. 4. On behalf of the official respondents-police, basing on the instructions, the learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that the police Suryapet registered six cases against respondent No.4 company, which cheated many innocent people of Suryapet and surrounding villages, who have invested huge amounts in respondent No.4 company running in crores. Those criminal cases are as follows: i) Cr.No.213/2008 U/ss.406, 409, 420 IPC, Sections 3 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money circulation scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 on the file of Hon’ble JFCM Court, Suryapet. ii) Cr.No.307/2008 U/s.420 IPC, Sections 2©, 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money circulation Scheme (Banning) At, 1978 on the file of Hon’ble JFCM Court, Suryapet. iii) Cr.No.37/2009 U/ss.406, 477-A, 420, 409 IPC, Section 2©, 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 on the file of Hon’ble JFCM Court, Suryapet. iv) Cr.No.39/2009 U/ss.406, 409, 420 IPC, Section 2©, 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money circulation scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 on the file of Hon’ble JFCM Court, Suryapet. v) Cr.No.171/2009 U/ss.406, 409, 420 IPC, Sections 2©, 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 on the file of Hon’ble JFCM Court, Suryapet. vi) Cr.No.172/2009 U/ss.406, 409, 420 IPC, Sections 2©, 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 on the file of the Hon’ble JFCM Court, Suryapet. The said criminal cases are pending for investigation. Pursuant to the same, they seized the records, computer, vehicles belonging to respondent No.4 under cover of seizure panchanama. The police also freezed the bank accounts pertaining to respondent No.4 company under Section 102 Cr.P.C. by following due legal procedure wherein, it deposited the amount fraudulently collected by cheating the innocent investors. It is also stated that three more cases were registered against respondent No.4 as under: i) Cr.No.114/2008 U/s.420 IPC, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money circulation scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 on the file of Hon’ble JFCM Court, Narspur, Medak District. ii) Cr.No.155/2008 U/s.420 IPC, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money circulation scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 on the file of Hon’ble JFCM Court, Narspur, Medak District. iii) Cr.No.50/2009 U/s.420 IPC, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money circulation scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 on the file of Hon’ble JFCM Court, Narspur, Medak District. It is submitted that the Managing Director of respondent No.4-Company filed many cases in different Courts and caused many legal hurdles hampering the investigation but his efforts turned futile. It is also stated that he obtained a de-freezing order of the bank accounts in Crl.M.P.No.43 of 2009 in Cr.No.307 of 2008 of Suryapet Police Station dated 16.01.2009 from Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge’s Court, Nalgonda. Aggrieved by the said orders, the police Suryapet approached this Court seeking suspension of the said order. In Crl.M.P.No.292 of 2009 in Cr.Revision Case No.229/2009, this Court, by order dated 18.02.2009, suspended the order of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, allowing the investigating agency to continue the investigation in the above cases by freezing the bank accounts of respondent No.4 company. It is further stated that various petitions filed by respondent No.4 praying for defreezing the bank accounts were declined by the trial Courts and respondent No.4 is the brain behind persuading the petitioners and making them to file the petitions only to circumvent the updated bank accounts. It is also stated that the Chief Managing Director of respondent No.4 company – Mr.Theppali Saidulu, who is evading the arrest in the above cases, is issuing cheques to his agents and thereby, instigating them to file the writ petitions and the petitioners are the agents of respondent No.4, who lured the gullible people and made them to invest huge amounts as commission from the company. It is also stated that the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Department, Circle No.9(1) Hyderabad provisionally attached the assets of respondent No.4 in two different banks i.e., Laxmi Vilas Bank, Suryapet branch for Rs.1,59,16,181/- and State Bank of Hyderabad, Suryapet Main Branch for Rs.62,14,709/- vide proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 9(1) Hyderabad vide F.No.281B/DCIT/2008-09 dated 06.03.2009 totalling Rs.2,21,31,210/- out of the total deposit amount Rs.4,86,57,755/- in different banks at Suryapet and that if the deposited amount in the banks of respondent No.4 company is de- freezed, while the above cases are under investigation, the customers are not only deprived of their hard earnings, but also the State will be incapacitated from collecting the income tax dues. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader for Home submitted to dismiss the writ petitions. 5. The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.4 company started business of purchasing electrical, electronics, other household articles and home appliances. On the complaint lodged by the customers, nine cases have been filed by the police against respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 is evading his arrest and going on issuing the cheques in favour of his agents so as to facilitate to defreeze the accounts seized by the police in the process of investigation of the said crimes. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in similar situation, the District Court, on the presentation of the cheques, which were returned on the ground of freezing of the accounts, had ordered for defreezing the accounts. Therefore, the petitioners herein are also situated with that of the petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.43 of 2009 in Cr.No.307/2008. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that necessary directions may be issued as prayed for. 7. But the learned Government Pleader for Home submits that the Chief Managing Director of respondent No.4 is the brain behind the petitioners. Several criminal cases are pending against respondent No.4 and he is evading the arrest and his accounts have been seized pursuant to the criminal proceedings initiated against him and his properties were earlier attached by the Income Tax authorities. If the relief sought for by the petitioners is granted, it is nothing but leaving respondent No.4 from the clutches of the criminal proceedings, who cheated many innocent customers. He also brought to the notice of this Court that as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in a similar case, the District Court had passed the orders of defreezing the accounts. Though it is correct, aggrieved by the same, the police had filed Crl.M.P.No.292 of 2009 in Crl.R.C.No.229 of 2009, wherein this Court had suspended the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda on 18.02.2009. 8. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as sought for in the writ petitions or any observation in their favour. 9. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 07th October, 2009 AMD