THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25160 OF 2011 ORDER: When the Writ Petition was filed before this Court on 07.09.2011 to declare the action of the respondents in harassing the managing trustee of the petitioner trust, his family members and other members of the trust, as illegal and arbitrary, admittedly (refer paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent), no case had been registered against the petitioner in any police station. Curiously a letter was addressed, on 07.09.2011, to the ICICI Bank that a case has been registered in Crime No.123 of 2011 under Sections 406, 420, 120B I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors Financial Establishment Act, 1999 (for short, ‘the Act’), against the petitioner, and that his account should be frozen. Consequently the bank informed the petitioner, on 08.09.2011, of such a request having been received from the local police, and their bank account having been frozen on 08.09.2011. On 08.09.2011, this Court directed the matter to be listed on 13.09.2011 to enable the Learned Government Pleader for Home to obtain instructions. In the interregnum, on 10.09.2011, one Sri K. Anil Kumar is said to have lodged a complaint against the petitioner based on which Crime No.83 of 2011, under Sections 406, 420, 120B I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Act, was registered on the file of II Town Police Station, Kavali as per the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Nellore District, and the matter has been taken up for investigation. Sri N. Subba Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would vehemently contend that the chronology of events referred to hereinabove would itself show that a crime has been registered, and the managing trustee of the petitioner involved therein, only to ensure that he is not permitted to operate the bank account, and deny them the freedom of propagating their religion. While these submissions cannot be brushed aside, it must also borne in mind that the remedy, which the petitioner has, is to have the complaint registered against him quashed, and as long as the registered complaint, albeit one filed after the present Writ Petition was listed before this Court, continues to remain in operation, it would be inappropriate for this Court to injunct the respondents from either investigating the matter, or in directing them to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere at this stage. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of seeking to have the complaint quashed in appropriate proceedings, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J September 19, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. by 23.09.2011 B/O.MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25160 OF 2011 September 19, 2011 MD