APHC010518492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 26837 OF 2025 Between: 1. HDFC BANK LIMITED, Bezawada Nischala Ramya, aged 26 years, D/o Late Bezawada Srinivasa Rao, Occupation R/o 40-5-4A, 3rd Floor, HDFC Bank House, Tikkie Road, Vijayawada 520010, Represented by its Legal Manager. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by Principal Secretory Home Department Secretariat Amaravati Velagapudi KRISHNA District 2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Regional Office, Kurnool. 3. Addl Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Regional Office, Kurnool. 4. Smt Mallela Sowndarya, W/o Sunny Kranthi Kumar Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order, or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed in CrI.M.P. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA PETITION NO: 26837 OF 2025 1. HDFC BANK LIMITED, Bezawada Nischala Ramya, aged 26 years, D/o Late Bezawada Srinivasa Rao, Occupation- Legal Manager of HDFC Bank, 4A, 3rd Floor, HDFC Bank House, Tikkie Road, Vijayawada sented by its Legal Manager. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by Principal Secretory Home Department Secretariat Amaravati Velagapudi KRISHNA District 2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, 3. Addl Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, 4. Smt Mallela Sowndarya, W/o Sunny Kranthi Kumar ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order, or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed in CrI.M.P. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 1. HDFC BANK LIMITED, Bezawada Nischala Ramya, aged 26 years, D/o Legal Manager of HDFC Bank, 4A, 3rd Floor, HDFC Bank House, Tikkie Road, Vijayawada - ...Petitioner 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by Principal Secretory Home Department Secretariat Amaravati Velagapudi KRISHNA District 2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, 3. Addl Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order, or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed in CrI.M.P. 2 No. 95/2024 in S.C. No. 82/2024 in Crime No. 78/2021 of CID Police, Kurnool on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur, dated 29.05.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 300-A of the Constitution of India, thereunder consequently set-aside the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur, dated 29.05.2024 in CrI.M.P. No. 95/2024 in S.C. No. 82/2024 in Crime No. 78/2021 of CID Police, Kurnool and not to conduct the sale of the attached property in the custody of the Petitioner bank vide loan Account No. 73247502 belonging to the 4th Respondent without conducting the trial of the case, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all the further proceedings in the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur, dated 29.05.2024 in CrI.M.P. No. 95/2024 in S.C. No. 82/2024 in Crime No. 78/2021 of CID Police, Kurnool and not to conduct the sale of the attached property in the custody of the Petitioner bank vide loan Account No. 73247502 belonging to the 4th Respondent without conducting the trial of the case, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: CHALASANI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 26837 OF 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order, or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed in CrI.M.P. No. 95/2024 in S.C. No. 82/2024 in Crime No. 78/2021 of CID Police, Kurnool on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur, dated 29.05.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 300-A of the Constitution of India, thereunder consequently set-aside the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur, dated 29.05.2024 in CrI.M.P. No. 95/2024 in S.C. No. 82/2024 in Crime No. 78/2021 of CID Police, Kurnool and not to conduct the sale of the attached property in the custody of the Petitioner bank vide loan Account No. 73247502 belonging to the 4th Respondent without conducting the trial of the case, and to pass...…” 02. Heard Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for CID appearing for the official respondents. 03. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur, permitting the CID to auction the attached properties and deposit the sale proceeds, is contrary to the settled principles of law. It is contended that unless and until the trial in S.C. No. 82 of 2024 is concluded and guilt is established, no sale of the attached properties can be permitted, and the order under challenge amounts to depriving the petitioner-bank of its secured rights without due process. 4 04. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CID, while opposing the writ petition, would submit that the CID had filed a petition before the trial Court seeking permission to auction the attached properties of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and the same was allowed by the order dated 29.05.2024. It is contended that against such order, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal and, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 05. On a consideration of the rival submissions, it is clear that the order impugned is one passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge in exercise of powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and as such, a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party. It is well settled that when a statutory remedy is provided, ordinarily a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 06. In the present case, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to work out its remedies before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATAJYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 26.09.2025 KKV 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 201 W.P.No.26837 of 2025 Dated.26.09.2025 KKV