[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Tummala Sai Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 13 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.7379 of 2025
DATE OF ORDER: 13.04.2026
Between:
Tummala Sai Kumar
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
...Respondents
ORDER :
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction,
more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus,
declaring the action of the 4th respondent in freezing the
Savings Bank Account of petitioner, bearing Account
No.306910100012729, having with Union Bank of India,
Gambhiraopet Branch, in connection with Crime No.45 of
2025, registered by the 4th respondent for the offence
u/s. 384 and 420 IPC as illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional and against the principles of natural
justice, and consequently, direct the Respondents No. 1 to
4 to unfreeze / restore the Savings Bank Account of
petitioner, bearing Account No.306910100012729, in the
interest of justice, and to pass...."
2. Heard Sri Thimmaraju Ramchandra Rao, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivas,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for
respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner herein is the resident of
Gambhiraopet Village and Mandal, Rajanna-Siricilla District,
eking out his livelihood by doing private job. Respondent
No.4 basing on the complaint dated 18.02.2025 lodged by
respondent No.5, stating that he and his friend Sayyad
Enthiaz have bought the agricultural land, situated at the
outskirts of Gollapally Village of Yellareddyguda Mandal in
the year 2020, and after few days, there was a clash between
them pertaining to the said agricultural land and further
respondent No.5's friend Sayyath Nusrath taken respondent
No.5 to the petitioner, where the petitioner with deceitful
words demanded Rs.10,00,000/- to solve the land issue of
respondent No.5 and that on believing the same, respondent
No.5 transferred Rs.50,000/- and even thought the days
have passed, but his problem was not solved and respondent
No.5 approached the petitioner and asked him to solve the
problem, and the petitioner again demanded remaining
Rs.50,000/- and that after some days, respondent No.5
approached Sayyath Enthiaz and they both talked and
solved their problem. After getting the problem got solved,
respondent No.5 went to Gambhiraopet along with his wife
Khasiya and his friends Andhe Balaiah, Lyagala Thirupati
asked the petitioner to return Rs.1,00,000/- but he refused
to pay the said amount and thus cheated and threatened to
kill him if he ask him again. Basing on the complaint of
respondent No.5, the police Gambhiraopet registered
FIR.No.45 of 2025.
4. On the date of alleged incident, respondent No.5 not
preferred any complaint to respondent No.4 and after a lapse
of 20 months, respondent No.5 lodged a complaint alleging
the money transfer and respondent No.4 registered FIR
No.45 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections
384 and 420 IPC. Respondent No.4 not only registered FIR
with a delay of 20 months and more se, sent a letter to
respondent No.6-Bank to freeze the petitioner's savings bank
account and accordingly, respondent No.6 seized the
petitioner's bank account. Due to the freezing of the bank
account, the petitioner could not make any banking
transactions and for which, the petitioner is facing great
hardship. If the version of respondent No.5 is believed to be
true, there is no demand or any notice from 22.06.2023 or
afterwards, all of sudden, on 18.02.2025, respondent no.5
made a complaint to the police alleging that all the contents
against the petitioner, respondent No.5 registered a case
after a lapse of 20 months, which is against the principles of
natural justice. Hence, the present writ petition.
5. When the matter is taken up for hearing,
Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Home by furnishing the written instructions passed on to the
learned Government Pleader for Home by the Sub-Inspector
of Police, Gambhiraopet Police Station, Rajanna Siricilla
District, dated 13.03.2025 would submit that respondent
No.5 lodged a complaint against the petitioner stated that he
and his friend had purchased agricultural land in the year
2020, but later a dispute arose between them. He further
alleged that the petitioner assured him that he would resolve
the dispute and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for the same.
Believing this, respondent No.5 paid Rs.50,000/- initially
and later paid the remaining amount in cash. However, the
issue was not resolved.
6. Later, the complainant and his friend settled their
dispute on their own and asked the petitioner to return the
money. Instead of returning it, the petitioner allegedly
threatened the complainant with death, following which a
complaint was given to the police. Based on the complaint, a
case was registered under Sections 384 and 420 IPC. During
the investigation, the police examined witnesses, visited the
scene and collected evidence. They concluded that the
petitioner had cheated the complainant. The petitioner was
arrested, allegedly confessed during interrogation and was
remanded to judicial custody. The police also took steps to
freeze the petitioner's bank account during the investigation.
7. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and upon perusing the material available on record,
the crime registered as against the petitioner has already
been investigated and charge-sheet has been laid before the
learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sircilla and
accordingly, this Court does not see any merit in this writ
petition to address the grievance of the petitioner as sought
for in this writ petition.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Needless
to mention, it is open for the petitioner to work-out the
remedies as available under law. There shall be no order as
to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if
any, shall stand closed.
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Dated: 13.04.2026
VSU
