Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/20340/2026 of K.NAVEEN CHOWDARY Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 2 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20340/2026 Between: 1. K.NAVEEN CHOWDARY, S/O K. JAGADEESH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O 1-102, CHINNA DEVALAPURAM, NARAYANAPURAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 1. THE UNION
APHC010374112026
IN THE
THURSDAY,
THE HONOURAB
WRIT
Between:
1. K.NAVEEN CHOWDA
YEARS R/O 1-102,
KURNOOL DISTRICT
1. THE UNION OF IND
HOME AFFAIRS, NO
2. THE RESERVE BA
SECRETARY, REGIO
37-158, MG ROAD,
PRADESH - 520002.
3. THE HOUSING DEV
REP. BY ITS BRANC
ROAD, NANDYAL,KU
518501.
4. THE STATION HOUS
BUNGLOW NO. 15,
SHAHI BAGH, AHME
5. THE STATION HOUS
BAILEY ROAD, RAJB
6. THE STATION HOUS
SECTOR- 8, JAGADH
7. THE STATION HOUS
D-BLOCK, SECTOR -
W.P.N
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPA
T PETITION NO: 20340/2026
ARY, S/O K. JAGADEESH, AGED A
CHINNA DEVALAPURAM, NARAYAN
T, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518533.
...PE
AND
IA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINI
ORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001.
ANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS R
ONAL OFFICE, STALIN CENTRAL, D
GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA,
VELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATIO
H MANAGER, NANDYAL BRANCH, 2-
URNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PR
SE OFFICER, CYBER CRIME POLICE
DAFNALA CROSS ROAD, NEAR IP
EDABAD, GUJARAT - 380004.
SE OFFICER, CYBER CRIME POLICE
ANSI NAGAR, PATNA, BIHAR - 80000
SE OFFICER, CYBER CRIME POLICE
HRI, YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA - 135
SE OFFICER, CYBER CRIME POLICE
18, KAVI NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH
RC,J
No.20340 of 2026
H
ATI
ABOUT 26
NAPURAM,
TITIONER
ISTRY OF
REGIONAL
D. NO. 27-
ANDHRA
ON BANK,
-414, N.K.
RADESH -
STATION,
PS MESS,
STATION,
1.
STATION,
5003.
STATION,
RC,J
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in freezing the bank account bearing No. 50100523507702, Nandyal Branch, IFSC Code - HDFC000095 of the petitioner based on the complaints raised by the Respondents No. 4 to 7 contrary to the procedure established u/s 106 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakdha Sanhita, 2023, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to unfreeze the petitioners Bank Account No. 50100523507702, IFSC Code - HDFC000095 and permit the petitioner to operate the said account number by exercising lien on the disputed amount allegedly credited to the petitioners account and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 to direct the respondents to unfreeze the petitioner’s Bank Account No.
50100523507702, Nandyal Branch, IFSC Code - HDFC000095 and permit the petitioner to operate the said account number by exercising lien on the disputed amount allegedly credited to the petitioner’s bank accountpending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.MANDALIKA KAVYA SUDHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR HOME
2.MANNAM VENKATA KRISHNA RAO
3.CHALASANI AJAY KUMAR
4.P SARASWATHI CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL
RC,J
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondents in freezing account of the petitioner bearing No.50100523507702 in HDFC Bank based on the complaint raised by respondent nos.4 to 7.
2. Heard Ms. Mandalika Kavya Sudha, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri V.Krishna Rao Mannam, learned counsel for respondent no.2-Reserve Bank of India, and Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.3 bank.
3. Ms.Mandalika Kavya Sudha, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that as per the directions from the Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, the respondent bank debit freezed the petitioner’s bank account in violation of the principles of natural justice and law established by Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereby disabling him from operating his account, despite the fact that the petitioner is not an accused in any of the alleged cyber crimes nor had any acquaintance with any person involved in the alleged crimes and therefore, blanket freezing of the account of the petitioner in its entirety and even if there is any intimation/direction/ requisition, the blanket ought to have confined debit-freezing of the account only to the extent of the disputed amount enabling the petitioner to deal with his account and transact beyond that limit. Accordingly, prayed to allow the petition.
RC,J
4. Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for bank contended that based on the directions of the Cyber Crime Reporting Portal that in relation to a cyber crime certain amount has been transferred to the petitioner subject bank account, the same had been frozen and prayed to pass appropriate orders.
5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. The petitioner’s bank account was frozen as per the instructions received from Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. As of now there is no material to show that the petitioner is an accused in any of the cyber crimes with regard to which the account was frozen.
7. It is fairly settled that debit freezes must be strictly confined to the disputed or suspected amount rather than blocking the entire account. Freezing an entire bank account is considered disproportionate, illegal, and a violation of rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, as it paralyzes livelihoods and legitimate business operations. Therefore, this court is inclined to direct the bank to mark a lien only on the specific fraudulent/disputed amount while unfreezing the remainder of the account so as to enable the petitioner to operate it normally.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent bank to mark lien only on the specific disputed amount while unfreezing the RC,J
remainder of the account of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 3rd September,2026.
RR