IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 35425 of 2014 BETWEEN SAB Fincon & Media Pvt. Ltd., AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner is a Company, which has approached this court by the present writ petition alleging that respondent Nos.3 to 6 are calling the petitioner to their office regularly and insisting on the petitioner to pay the loan amounts secured by respondent No.7 from private bank. Alleging that such illegal and irrational demands are wholly unauthorized, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned Government Pleader has received instructions, which say that on 28.08.2013 a complaint was received by the Chilakalaguda Police Station alleging that the complainant was cheated by promising that the petitioner herein is advancing loans. Based on the said complaint, crime No.498/13 for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were registered on the file of Chilakalaguda P.S. against one Basha, employee of the petitioner company. During the course of investigation, it was disclosed that petitioner was involved in the offence and therefore, petitioner was given a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. on 02.09.2013 requesting him to appear in person before investigating agency on 03.09.2014 together with documentary evidence. However, petitioner did not respond to the said notice. Instructions further state that petitioner’s presence before the investigating officer is essential in order to complete the investigation. Hence, the allegations in the present writ petition that there is any threat etc., is denied. It is further stated in the instructions that action will be taken against the petitioner by following due procedure contemplated under law.
4. Evidently, petitioner’s involvement is prima facie appearing as per the investigation in the aforesaid crime. Hence, it is imperative for the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer along with the documents in response to the notice issued to him. If the petitioner is involved in the offence, obviously, the Mandamus cannot be given to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner. Hence, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the investigating officer and record his statement and no further orders are warranted in this writ petition.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 12, 2014 LMV