IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.10841 OF 2019 DATE: 08.01.2026 Between:

Biju Thomas …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department and 3 others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction preferably one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of various police stations under the administrative control of the Respondents in registering crimes under provision of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 without even scrutinizing the applicability of the provisions of this Act to the nature of business run by the Petitioner through his company in the name and style of M/s.Suvan Technology Solutions India Pvt Ltd., violating the Constitutional rights enshrined under Article 21 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice etc., and consequently direct the Respondents to issue executive instructions directing the police stations under their administrative control to grant benefits of provisions of Sec.41-A Cr.P.C in the event of any future registration of crime alleging nexus with the said M/s. Heera Group of Companies against the Petitioner and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case….” 2. None appeared for the petitioner.

3.1. Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submits that approximately seven criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, “the Act, 1999”). He contends that since the offences alleged under the Act are punishable with imprisonment extending up to ten years, the petitioner’s request for issuance of executive instructions to the police authorities to extend the benefit of Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in the event of registration of any crime is legally untenable.

3.2. He further submits that upon receipt of any complaint or representation, and consequent registration of a cognizable offence, the concerned police authorities are duty-bound to conduct a preliminary enquiry and proceed strictly in accordance with law. Hence, the petitioner’s contention that crimes are being registered without due scrutiny is unfounded. Moreover, the petitioner’s plea seeking anticipatory directions regarding potential or future crimes is speculative and beyond the permissible scope of judicial review. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader prays for dismissal of the writ petition as being devoid of merit.

4. I have examined the material placed on record.

5. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that several police stations have registered crimes against him purportedly on the ground of his alleged association with M/s. Heera Group of Companies, invoking the provisions of the Act, 1999 without any preliminary scrutiny or verification. On this basis, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to issue administrative or executive instructions extending the procedural safeguard contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., in cases of such future registrations.

6. The Code of Criminal Procedure lays down a comprehensive framework governing investigation, including the manner in which a police officer must proceed upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence. Upon receipt of such information, the concerned police station is mandated to register a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and to conduct an investigation in accordance with law. In the landmark judgment of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for offences punishable with imprisonm