Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1116 (PNJ)

Shabnamjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab

2013-08-21

Rekha Mittal

body2013
JUDGMENT Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.: - Through the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”), the petitioners pray for issuance of directions to respondent No. 4 to defreeze/de-seal bank accounts of the petitioners which have been freezed on a request made by respondent No. 2 (Investigating Officer). 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that Manmeet Singh, son of the petitioners, was married to Harleen Kaur, respondent No. 3- complainant on 25.4.2011. After the marriage, husband of the complainant went to U.K. and the complainant got a job with Infosys, who later joined her husband in U.K. in January 2012. Due to some petty disputes between the complainant and her husband at U.K., she came back to India in the month of July 2012 and got registered FIR No. 19 dated 4.2.2013 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station, Rupnagar against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sisterin- law. The petitioners, parents-in-law of the complainant were arrested and granted regular bail after their custody for about a month. It is further submitted that when the petitioners were in custody, the Investigating Officer moved an application to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Hari Nagar, DFS Janakpuri, New Delhi for stopping operation of Bank Account No. 1527000100076987 of petitioner No. 1, Account No. 1527000190489970 of petitioner No. 2 and Locker No. AK-00950 in the name of petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 4 freezed the said bank accounts of the petitioners without providing an opportunity of hearing. It is argued with vehemence that the Investigating Officer exceeded his power and jurisdiction to move an application for freezing the bank accounts of the petitioners as he neither sought any permission of the trial Court for moving such an application nor his action of getting the accounts freezed been approved by the learned trial Court. It is argued that the freezing of accounts of the petitioners by respondent No. 4 on the application of the Investigating Officer is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be set aside. 3. Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the contrary, submits that the complainant levelled allegations of demand of dowry, misappropriation of dowry articles and her salary. She also alleged that an amount of Rs. 5 Lacs was given in cash by her father to the petitioners from time to time. 3. Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the contrary, submits that the complainant levelled allegations of demand of dowry, misappropriation of dowry articles and her salary. She also alleged that an amount of Rs. 5 Lacs was given in cash by her father to the petitioners from time to time. It is further submitted that amount of Rs. 5 Lacs is yet to be recovered from the petitioners and the accounts of the petitioners have been got freezed as it is apprehended that the amount of Rs. 5 Lacs is deposited in the said accounts. 4. Per contra, counsel for respondent No. 3 has supported the freezing of accounts as an amount of Rs. 5 Lacs is yet to be recovered from the accused. It is argued that Manmeet Singh Kakar, the main accused is absconding and is yet to be arrested. It is urged that in case, the accounts of the petitioners are allowed to be operated, they will leave the country and would not be available during trial. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. The sole question for consideration is ‘whether the Investigating Officer has power to get the bank accounts of the accused freezed?’ 7. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their reply has not referred to any provision of law which authorizes an Investigating Officer to get the bank accounts of the accused freezed. However, Section 102 of the Code provides for power of police officer to seal certain property. A relevant extract from Section 102 of the Code is quoted hereinbelow:- “(1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. (2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer-incharge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. (3)Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx.” 8. Counsel for the contesting respondents failed to draw attention of this Court to any other provision relevant for the present controversy. (3)Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx.” 8. Counsel for the contesting respondents failed to draw attention of this Court to any other provision relevant for the present controversy. A perusal of Section 102 of the Code would reveal that a police officer is empowered to seize any property which is alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence. 9. Now the question arises ‘whether the power to seize property is wide enough to include the power to obtain an order prohibiting a bank from allowing the accused to operate a bank account?’ It appears to me that power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code does not authorize an Investigating officer to approach a bank with which the accused has an account, not to pay any amount out of the account of the accused and not to allow the accused to take away property from the Locker. In this context, reference can be made to Textile Traders Syndicate Limited, Bulandshahr vs. The State of U.P. and others AIR 1960 Allahabad 405 and M/s Purbanchal Road Service, Gauhati vs. The State, 1991 Crl. L..J. 2798(1). In Textile Traders Syndicate Limited’s case (supra), Allahabad High Court held that the word ‘seizure’ has been used in Section 550(old), Section 102 (new) of the Code in its ordinary dictionary meaning and means “the act of taking actual physical possession of moveable property”. Section 550 does not appear to contemplate a police officer prohibiting the payment of a debt by the debtor to the accused person. As long as the money is in the possession of the thief and capable of seizure it may be open to the police officer to seize it on the ground that it was suspected to be stolen property but once it passes into the hands of the debtor and the money becomes unidentifiable there can be no question of its being seized by the police officer. It was further held that an order passed by a police officer prohibiting a bank with which the accused had an account not to pay any amount out of the account to the accused cannot be passed under Section 550 of the Code and must be quashed on that account. It was further held that an order passed by a police officer prohibiting a bank with which the accused had an account not to pay any amount out of the account to the accused cannot be passed under Section 550 of the Code and must be quashed on that account. Similar observations have been made by Gauhati High Court in M/s Purabanchal Road Service’s case (supra). 10. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I find force in the contention of the petitioners that action of the Investigating Officer approaching the bank authorities for freezing their accounts is in gross violation of his authority and excess of jurisdiction, therefore, nullity and liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and respondent No. 4 is directed to permit the petitioners to operate their bank accounts in accordance with the bank regulations. 12. Before parting with this order, it is appropriate to record that conduct of the Investigating Officer in getting the accounts of the petitioners frozen and sealing Locker No. AK-00950 is in clear violation of any authority and jurisdiction. It further appears that the Investigating Officer has initiated these steps to extend unwarranted advantage to the complainant. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Rupnagar, is directed to look into the conduct of the Investigating Officer and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him, in accordance with law. --------0.B.S.0------------