AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mrs. B. Komal Varma learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. B.Rajeshwar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home, Andhra Pradesh appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and perused the record.
The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
*"...to issue an appropriate order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in directing Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to freeze/place a lien upon the Petitioner's Savings Bank Account bearing No.40748899757 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith remove the debit freeze/lien in its entirety and permit me to operate the said account without let, hindrance or restriction of any nature such other order(s) or further relief(s) as this* Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
The petitioner, a student pursuing an engineering course, claims that his bank account was frozen at the instance of the Cyber Crime Police of the State of Andhra Pradesh in connection with an alleged fraudulent transaction involving a sum of Rs.9,999/-, which was credited to his account on 13.03.2026. The petitioner asserts that he had no knowledge of the nature or source of the said transaction and that, immediately upon receipt, he transferred the amount to his friend, at whose request the transaction had been routed through his account. According to the petitioner, no part of the disputed amount remains in his account, and the existing balance comprises entirely legitimate funds, including a scholarship amount of Rs.45,200/- credited on 22.06.2026. Petitioner contends that the continued freezing of the entire account is arbitrary and disproportionate, violates the principles of natural justice, and has caused severe hardship by preventing him from paying his college fees.
At the outset, this Court is of the considered view that a part of cause of action may incidentally have arisen within the territorial limits of this Court on account of the implementation of the impugned debit freeze by respondent No.5. However, the substantial and integral cause of action emanates from the actions of respondent Nos.2 to 4, who are authorities of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The impugned direction to freeze the petitioner's bank account is stated to have originated from the Cyber Crime Police of the State of Andhra Pradesh through respondent No.4. In such circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to exercise judicial self-restraint in the matter of territorial jurisdiction and declines to entertain the present Writ Petition.
The scope of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India is well settled. A High Court may exercise jurisdiction where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial limits. The mere existence of an incidental fact within the territorial limits would not confer jurisdiction unless it constitutes an integral, essential, or material part of the cause of action.
In the present case, although the petitioner's Savings Bank Account is maintained in the State of Telangana and the debit freeze is being implemented through respondent No.5, the origin and source of the impugned action lie in the directions issued by respondent Nos.2 to 4, who are authorities of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The debit freeze was imposed pursuant to an investigation being conducted by the Station House Officer (SHO), Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the substantial and material part of the cause of action arises from the actions of respondent Nos.2 to 4, who are amenable to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, whereas the implementation of the debit freeze by respondent No.5 is merely consequential to the directions issued by the investigating agency.
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Writ Petition. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is directed primarily against the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4, who are authorities of the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the High Court of Andhra Pradesh or any other competent forum for appropriate relief.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the High Court of Andhra Pradesh or any other competent forum for appropriate relief.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. No costs.