Point of Law: it is a case where there were serious allegations of loan fraud by Chinese Companies involving Crores of rupees by cheating innocent people and their harassment. There were suicidal deaths due to the unbearable torture by the personnel of the said companies.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the Respondents in issuing the notice in Cr.No.366/5/MDPRPS/CYB/2021, dated 11.08.2021 as illegal and also issue consequential direction to the Respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner and their assets.

2. Heard Sri Mr. S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. N. Niyatha, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Rama Mohan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and Mr. D. Narender Naik, learned counsel for the 5th Respondent and perused the record.

3. FACTS OF THE CASE

i) The Petitioner and 5th Respondent are Educational Institutions run by responsible societies.

ii) An agreement of sale, dated 28.12.2018 was executed by the Petitioner in favour of Respondent No.5 on 28.12.2018 to sell the immovable property admeasuring 3833.28 Square Yards situated at Kukatpally Housing Board (KPHB) Colony, Phase VI, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana for a total sale consideration of Rs. 36,00,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Six Crore Only).

iii) Subsequently, a Business Transfer Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “BTA”) was entered into between the Petitioner and 5th Respondent on 11.03.2019. The purchase price for the transfer of business under the BTA was Rs. 6,50,00,000/-

iv) According to the 3rd Respondent, the above said agreement of sale and BTA were not performed.

v) First Information Report was lodged by the 5th Respondent wherein it was alleged that the whole transaction involving the agreement of sale was to be completed by 31.03.2019. However, the transaction was not completed by 31.03.2019 as the Petitioner failed to obtain No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the LIC Housing Finance to give effect to the above said agreements, which is one of the conditions of the said BTA.

vi) The agreements were extended by 30 days and subsequently for additional periods up to 30.09.2019. Meanwhile, Respondent No. 5 paid an amount of Rs.6,50,00,000/- as advance and when the performance of the BTA and agreement of sale became due, communications were addressed to the Petitioner but no response was received.

vii) The 5th Respondent claimed to return the advance amount of Rs.6,50,00,000/- but the Petitioner refused.

viii) the 5th Respondent claims that the Petitioner is illegally and unlawfully holding the amount of Rs.6,50,00,000/- and is not performing its obligations under the BTA and the agreement of sale dated 28.12.2018.

ix) Therefore, a complaint was lodged on 02.04.2021 with the Police, Madhapur Police Station, who in turn, registered a case against the Petitioner in Cr. No. 366 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 406 and Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).

x) In furtherance of the investigation, a notice in Cr.No.366/2/MDPRPS/CYB/2021 dated 25.07.2021 was issued by the Investigating Officer to the 4th Respondent to freeze the bank Accounts of the Petitioner in Central Bank of India and Kotak Mahindra Bank.

xi) The said notice was challenged in W.P. No. 18154 of 2021 and this Court vide order dated 04.08.2021 granted interim relief to the Petitioner wherein the Petitioner was allowed to operate the bank Accounts only in respect of payment of salaries and administering the school.

xii) On 11.08.2021 in the same crime vide Cr. No. 366 of 2021, another notice was issued by the same Investigating Officer under Section 91 and 102 of Cr.P.C. to 4th Respondent to freeze A/c No.0297301000034830 of the Petitioner. The said notice is challenged under the present writ petition.

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITONER

i) The notice issued by the 3rd Respondent under Section 91 and 102 of the Cr.P.C, to freeze its bank Account maintained with the 4th Respondent bank is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

ii) The 3rd Respondent has no jurisdiction to investigate the case as neither the land nor the building which is subject matter of the complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the 3rd Respon