Disposed

Smt. Gujjala Lakshmi v. The Union of India and 4 Others

Telangana HC2 Feb 2022WP/33862/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding the freezing of the petitioner bank account by bank authorities on the instruction of police without notice, the High Court held that as the answer registration of crime against the petitioner and freezing of the account, the petitioner must file an application before the competent criminal court to get the account unfrozen.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Gujjala Lakshmi Vs The Union of India and 4 Others — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S r^s i; i^r,'r' b iid', ;Ii}." !:,LilA N G A N A

¶2

WEDYF.g?IY THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWo rHousAND AND rwrNiy,i,io"^^'

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

wRrTP ETITION NO!3 386 20F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Srlr:s'lx',xhxi:ill;)Yt",3.,f",i,l;f,?1,,x%r.,i,%.d,n%,i.,?3,.r".!l1i;flB I;[i

17-1-

...PETITIONER

AND

1 3!:,y,:i,:,:1,,#,8"[:: by its prr. secretary, Revenue (Finance and Banks),

¶12

2 The State Bank of lndia. Bhadrachalam Branch, Charla Road, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem bistrict. Rep. ov it.-rjrjli# frri"g",

¶13

3 The State Bank of lndia. Sar3p2(s Branch, Sarapaka, Burgampahad lvlandal, B hadrachara m, B had rad ri koihiguoril'Di#i;i ffi ;:b; its B ranch Manaser.

¶14

4 The Circle lnspector of police, Bhadrachalam Town police Station, Bhadrachatam, Bhadradri XotrigJde; Diiiii.t.""'" ' "'

¶15

Gujjala Trinadha Rao. S/o. Late Nagaraju, Aged 59 years, occ. civir contractor, R/o. H.No. 17-1-g2l3A, Seetharama"nag'aiCdfonV,-Airt-rachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 ol lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High colrt i"a"y ne pleasea to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in ihe nature oi ltrlandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent tiank authorities in ireering .,e petitioners bank account No.36690s08497, of state Bank of lndia, Bhadracialam Branch, charla Road, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, including withholding of the cheque which was already cleared by th; 3rd respondent bank, on the instruction of the 4th respondent police at the instance of the Sth respondent is without power or authority and also without any notice to the petitioner is illegal and void and opposed to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the respondent banks to restore the petitioner's bank account in question to enable the petitioner to continue the transactions of bank account without interference of any bank authorities without following due process of law.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in. the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent banks to permit the petitioner to operate the petitioners bank account No.36690508497, of State Bank of lndia, Bhadrachalam Branch, Charla Road, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶20

¶21

Counsel^{for the Petitioners: SRI'MUMMANENI SRINIVASARAO} Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'1& 3 : SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶22

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'4 : G'PFOR HOME}

¶23

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'5 : SRI P'V'KRISHNAMACHARY}

¶24

The Court^{madethe followingORDER}

¶25

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTTCE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶26

Wr P ti nN o 3

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This Writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, is filed by the petitioner, wherein, the following prayer is made:

¶29

"...to /ssue a Writ, Order or di.rection more particularly one in the nature or Mandamu.s, d"rj;;;i;s";;;^raoction of the 2,d re s p o n d e n t B a n k a u t h^o r i t i e s i, f r" "^{ini" in J,pe t i t i o n e r,s b a n k} account No.36690508497 -.of Si"i" "eZn* of India, Bhadrachalam Branch, cnarta iiaa,""Bhadrarhutam, Bhadradri-Kothaoudem District, irrUiiil, *itnnolding of the cheque which ias l.lready ,iurui iv"tie 3,o respondent bank on the instruction oi tni i,;-nilpondent potice at the instance of the sth :3p-o:.q"il i, ii-{i iier or authority and also without any- l?|ce to tne iiitLner is iilegat and uoid and opposed to Artictes lS, lg a'nd')i o7 Constitution of Indi.a anq consequently to direct ti"- iipo,ra"rt banks to restore the petitioner,s bank account in jiestion to enable the petitioner to continue the transatciio;; ir Oant< account without interference of any bank^'aitiorities without following due process of law and to pass sici otner orders..,,

¶30

Heard both sides. perused the record.

¶31

The Iearned counsel for the petitioner would submit that lawfully the petitioner is entiUed to get an amount of Rs.45,00,000/- from the respondent No.5. On 27.08.2021, the respondent No.5 issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and it was cleared by the respondent No.3-Bank and the amount was credited to the account of the petltioner lying with respondent No.2-State Bank of India, Bhadrachalam Branch, Charla Road, Bhadrachalam. However, without there being any inFormation and following the rule of law, the respondent No.2-Bank freezed the account of the^petitioner and not allowing her to operate the account and ultimately^prayed to allow the Writ Petition as^prayed For.

¶32

¶33

¶34

On the^{other hand' Sri M'Ram Mohan Rao' learned Asslstant} Government^{Pleaderfor Home' would submit that the petitioneris} Accused^{No,2 in Crime No'369 l2O2L on the file of Bhadrachalam} Town^{police station, Bhadradri KothagudemDistrict, registered for} the offences^{underSections379 and 420 iPC' and the subject} account^{was freezed on 06'09'2021 (i e' on the next day of} registration^{of the subject crime)and the said fact was informed to} the Magistrate^{concerned' It is furthersubmittedthat to defreeze} the account,^{the petitionerhas to fire an appropriate apprication} beforethecompetentCriminalCourthavingjurisdiction.

¶35

The said^{submissionof the learned Assistant Government} Pleader for^{Home, is taken on record '}

¶36

6.SincethereWasregistrationofcrimeagainstthepetitioner and the fact^{of freezingthe accountof the petitioner lying with} respondent No.2-Bank^{has been informed to the Magistrate} concerned, the^{petitioner has to workoutthe remediesby filingan} appropriate application^{before the Magistrate concerned,in} accorda nce with law.

¶37

With the above observation/direction,^{this Writ Petitionis} disposed of

¶38

Miscellaneous^petitions, if any,^pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶39

SD/.K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// _r. SECTION OFFICER

¶40

¶41

The Principal Secretary,^{Unionof lndia' Revenue (Finance and Banks),} Secretariat, New Delhi.

¶42

The Branch Manager, State^{Bank of lndia, Bhadrachalam Branch, Charla Road,} Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem^District.

¶43

The Branch Manager, State^{Bank of lndia, Sarapaka Branch, SLapaka,} Burgampahad Mandat, Bhadrachalam,^{BhadradriKothagud-em District.}

¶44

The. Circle lnspector of Police, Bhadrachalam^{Town Police Station,} Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶45

Two CC to G.P FOR HOIUE, High Court for the^{State of Telanganaat} Hvderahad.^(OLJT).

¶46

k **,,;.
1!
o.une
7. One SRINIVASA RAO ,Ad
8. One U RAJE SHWAR RAO,vocate IOpUCI
9. Two MACHA RY, Advocate (AX'.:3i'" toPUcl
10. One spare copy
SA
NPJ \l',

f I

HtGH COURT

DATED:0210212022

ORDER

WP.No.33862 ot 2021

.<br>yrc ST,q , {r'
( v4
<br>aj g3 r[B 2022 :.-, 1
)/

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶56

wtTHouT cosTs.

¶57

<br>a

Smt. Gujjala Lakshmi v. The Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Gujjala Lakshmi v. The Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basheed Shaik , S.K. Basheed Vs The State of Telangana

Atc Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Abdul Dastagir Vs The Government of Telangana

Mohammed Sultan and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Korra Ashok Vs The State of Telangana

Rama Chandramouli, Vs State of Telangana, Rep by the Secretary