Shalumbhi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

MOHAMMED HUSSAIN BASHA, S/O. MOHD. IMAMSAB, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 1766/A, GOKUL PLOTS, KPHB COLONY, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA - 500085

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI,A.P.522228

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NTR POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, VIJAYAWADA, A.P.520001

¶15

THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COMMISSIONER'S TASK FORCE, NTR POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, VIJAYAWADA, A.P.520001

¶16

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, P.S. MACHAVARAM, NTR POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, VIJAYAWADA, A.P.520008.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

K GANI REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

2

¶22

Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.8935 & 8950 of 2026 Dated 07.04.2026

¶23

GP FOR HOME

¶24

2.WRIT PETITION NO: 8950/2026

¶25

Between:

¶26

SHALUMBHI, W/O. MD. MAQDOOM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. FLAT NO.303, ANNAPURNA TOWERS, HIG-505, 6TH PHASE, NEAR K.S. BAKERS, KPHB COLONY, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD TELANGANA - 500085

¶27

...PETITIONER

¶28

AND

¶29

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, A.P.522228

¶30

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NTR POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, VIJAYAWADA, A.P.520001

¶31

THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COMMISSIONER'S TASK FORCE, NTR POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, VIJAYAWADA, A.P.520001

¶32

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, P.S. MACHAVARAM, NTR POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, VIJAYAWADA, A.P.520008

¶33

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

K GANI REDDY

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

GP FOR HOME

¶38

3

¶39

Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.8935 & 8950 of 2026 Dated 07.04.2026

¶40

The Court made the following:

¶41

COMMON ORDER :

¶42

These two Writ Petitions are heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order, as the crime involved in both Writ Petitions is one and the same, though the petitioners are different.

¶43

2. The Writ Petition No.8935 of 2026 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶44

“…to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in harassing the Petitioner by issuing repeated notices illegally detaining the Petitioner arbitrarily freezing the Petitioners bank account and demanding money for settlement in Cr No 248/2025 as illegal arbitrary capricious unconstitutional and against the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents to immediately defreeze the Petitioners bank accounts and pass….”

¶45

3. The Writ Petition No.8950 of 2026 has been filed under Article 226 of

¶46

the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶47

“…to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in harassing the Petitioner by issuing repeated notices and demanding money for settlement in Cr No 248/2025 as illegal arbitrary capricious unconstitutional and against the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to direct the respondents to strictly comply with the proviso of Section 941 of BNSS by examining the Petitioner only at her residence in Hyderabad and pass….”

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

¶49

Assistant Government Pleader.

¶50

Mr. K. Gani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that

¶51

the petitioners have been unnecessarily called to the police station by the

¶52

4

¶53

Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.8935 & 8950 of 2026

¶54

Dated 07.04.2026

¶55

respondent police several times and are demanding them to settle the case in Cr. No. 248 of 2025 by paying huge amounts, and the respondent police are also arbitrarily threatening to freeze the accounts of the petitioners.

¶56

Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that, pursuant to the investigation conducted in Cr.No.248 of 2025, the police have called the petitioners to the police station. There is a huge scam of Advika Trading Company from 2022 onwards, which has defrauded several gullible people. The petitioners are wrongful gainers of a huge amount to the tune of Rs.45,24,000/-. The police, in connection with conducting the investigation, have called the petitioners by issuing notices contemplated under Sections 179 and 94 of ‘the BNSS’.

¶57

The police have not behaved in a high-handed manner against the petitioners and are only discharging their lawful duties. The petitioners have not cooperated with the investigation. When the police suspect that the petitioners are wrongful gainers of a huge amount in the scam and that they have illegally benefited from Accused No.1, the police, for the purpose of conducting an effective investigation, have the power and authority to summon the petitioners and question them regarding the illegal gain. The petitioners, being responsible and law-abiding citizens, have to cooperate with the police in the conduct of the investigation.

¶58

5

¶59

Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.8935 & 8950 of 2026 Dated 07.04.2026

¶60

However, the police cannot arbitrarily exercise any power or compel the petitioners to settle the issue by depositing amounts. The police also cannot demand the petitioners to pay money by way of settlement without following due process of law.

¶61

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the petitioners, these two Writ Petitions are disposed of, directing the respondent police to act in accordance with law, and the petitioners shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in all respects by duly obeying the lawful instructions of the Investigating Officer. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners are found to have committed any offence in the course of investigation, the police are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law against the petitioners.

¶62