JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Looking to the controversy involved in the matter and by consent of the parties, we have heard the Writ Petition finally at the stage of admission by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith. Question to be looked into is – Whether Bank account of petitioners, who are not accused in any crime can be freezed by the Investigating Agency, under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code? The Banks in which accounts lie are respondent nos. 3 and 4. The concerned police station is respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Last respondent i.e. respondent no.5 is State of Maharashtra. Prayer in the petition is to quash and set aside communications dated 20.11.2013, 20.11.2013, 03.12.2013 and 04.12.2013 issued by the respondent no.2 Deputy Superintendent of Police to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 Banks freezing the bank accounts. Letters are identical and point out that an offence has been registered under Sections 420, 465, 468, 201, 109, 409 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, as also Section 66A of the Information Technology Act and the S.D.P.O. Gadchandur is investigating into it. The account of petitioners with the said Bank has been wrongly used in the said offence. The accounts are therefore, directed to be freezed. Banks have been informed to contact the Police station officer concerned immediately if any body attempted to deal with those accounts. 2. We have heard Shri A.A. Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri T.A. Mirza, learned A.P.P. for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5, Shri V.M. Gadkari, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri V.A. Bramhe, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. Application No.100/2015 has been filed by M/s. Ultratech Limited seeking intervention. Shri M.R. Pillai, learned Counsel has appeared for proposed intervenor Company. 3. Proposed intervenor company has pointed out that the company needed to expand its plant at Awarpur, Tahsil Korparna, District Chandrapur and therefore, decided to acquire about 384 acres of land situated at village Talodi, Bakhardi, Palgaon. Shekhar Wankhede and Prakashrao, both residents of Nagpur represented to proposed intervenor company that they are in the business of advising and private consultation for acquisition of private lands and established a firm by name "M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy". 4. Shekhar Wankhede and Prakashrao, both residents of Nagpur represented to proposed intervenor company that they are in the business of advising and private consultation for acquisition of private lands and established a firm by name "M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy". 4. After negotiations, a letter of indent came to be issued on 09.12.2011 and work of acquiring 384 acres of land was given to Shekhar Wankhede and Prakashrao. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the proposed intervenor issued total 99 cheques in the name of 41 land owners. Accused persons therefore, forged an agreement to sale and encashed the cheques issued in the name of the cultivators by opening bank accounts with the help of forged documents. After getting knowledge of this fraud, the proposed intervenor Company lodged a police complaint on 13.08.2013. Even the land owners have filed complaint against those accused persons. During investigation the police authorities found that the accused have committed breach of trust by misappropriating total amount of Rs. 16,15,52,636/- and that amount reached the account of petitioners Banks at Nagpur. Petitioners claim that the accused persons have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the petitioner no.1 for setting up a News Channel. The proposed intervenor company submits that accused persons have transferred misappropriated amounts to various persons including the present petitioners. They also point out that similar writ petition registered as Writ Petition No. 383/2015, has been filed by Khamboj Ispat Private Limited. 5. The respondent no.2 S. D.P.O. has filed reply which is more or less on the same lines. In paragraph no.5 of the said reply it is pointed out that various cheques were issued in the name of 41 Farmers and its total amount is Rs. 11,68,51,415/. Proposed intervenor company has through R.T.G.S. paid total amount of Rs. 4,47,01,221/- to M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy. The details of banks and amounts credited to bogus bank accounts opened in the name of 36 farmers with those banks are given in paragraph no.6. Details of withdrawal of amounts from said account or its transfer to their own bank accounts by accused persons are given in paragraph no.7. Major amount of misappropriation through commission of offence came to be deposited in the bank accounts of M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy, maintained with ICICI Bank, Dharampeth Branch, Nagpur. Details of withdrawal of amounts from said account or its transfer to their own bank accounts by accused persons are given in paragraph no.7. Major amount of misappropriation through commission of offence came to be deposited in the bank accounts of M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy, maintained with ICICI Bank, Dharampeth Branch, Nagpur. Amounts paid by the proposed intervenor company for completing the transactions have been deposited through RTGS in the said bank accounts. The amount of cheques in the name of cultivators encashed by opening bank account, and amount has ultimately been deposited by the accused persons in their own accounts. 6. Petitioners state that they are not concerned with any crime or offence. Shekhar Wankhede posed himself to be a contractor and entrepreneur and approached the petitioner no.3 for setting up National Hindi News Channel. Petitioner no.3 as a part of its business, agreed to set up the news channel and provided necessary infrastructure therefor. Said Shekhar Wankhede disclosed that he is partner of M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy. A memorandum of understanding was entered into between the petitioner no.3 and M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy on 11.01.2013. Except for this pure business relations, which is in accordance with law, the petitioners have got no connection whatsoever with Shekhar Wankhede or M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy. The orders of freezing of accounts therefore, came as a surprise to them. Petitioners are not in a position to deal with those accounts since November – December, 2013. They thereafter made representation seeking de-freezing, but, no further steps have been taken upon it and bank accounts still continue to be attached. 7. Shri Naik, learned Counsel submits that ingredients of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, are not satisfied in this matter, as the Bank account of petitioners is not a suspicious account and does not create any doubt about commission of offence. It's surfacing during investigation is not sufficient to attract Section 102. He states that if out of such amount earned by any criminal, fees are paid to Advocate or to Doctor in consideration of services rendered, those fees cannot be recovered back from Advocate or Doctor. Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5 are not coming up with a case that the petitioners are involved in any offence. He states that if out of such amount earned by any criminal, fees are paid to Advocate or to Doctor in consideration of services rendered, those fees cannot be recovered back from Advocate or Doctor. Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5 are not coming up with a case that the petitioners are involved in any offence. As such, the amount has been legally earned by the petitioners and cannot be denied to them and the accounts need to be defreezed. He has also invited attention to a rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners to state that amounts have been received by the petitioner no.3 as fees in accordance with the memorandum of agreement between the parties and it has still to receive balance amount of Rs. 9,39,576/- from Shri Shekhar Wankhede towards work done by it. Shri Naik, learned counsel points out that though this Court during arguments specifically enquired from learned A.P.P., the learned A.P.P. has not pointed out any investigation revealing that the petitioner no.3 has not rendered any services to Shekhar Wankhede or his firm. In the situation, when the petitioners have received the amount in accordance with law, the accounts of petitioners cannot be freezed. 8. Shri Mirza, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents State, submits that details of amounts still standing to the credit of the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 in their bank accounts are given in paragraph no.9 of the reply. Investigation or the mode and manner in which that amount has been dealt with by the petitioners is given in paragraph no.11. Transfer of amount by petitioner no.1 to the account of his wife and investments made by the wife thereafter are given in paragraph no.12. He invites attention to a specific averment in reply paragraph no.13, to urge that no work in respect of setting up of a news channel as yet has started in accordance with the memorandum of understanding between the petitioner no.3, and Shekhar Wankhede. The amounts earned through commission of offences are deposited in above mentioned bank account of the petitioners, as such provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been rightly taken recourse to. 9. In his reply, Shri Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to documents placed with rejoinder to demonstrate the consultation, and services extended to M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy. 9. In his reply, Shri Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to documents placed with rejoinder to demonstrate the consultation, and services extended to M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy. He further points out that in so far as the proposed intervenor company is concerned, it has already taken action against Shekhar Wankhede and Prakashrao and their Firm as per arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. He therefore, states that in this situation, the amounts earned by the petitioners is on account of consultation and services offered. They cannot be denied the right to use that amount in accordance with law for their business and needs. Parties have placed reliance upon judgment of Full Bench of this Court reported at 2011 Cri.L.J. 2522 (Vinoskumar Ramchandran Valluvar v. The State of Maharashtra), 2008 All MR (Cri) 1535 (ICICI Bank Ltd v. State of Maharashtra), and a judgment of Madras High Court reported at 2003 Cr.L.J. 2902 (Rajamani v. Inspector of Police, Salem and others). 10. Petitioners during argument also pointed out that for various Appliances, Machineries and other similar apparatus, M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy has to pay separately as agreed between the parties. It is therefore, apparent that services of consultations or expertise provided by the petitioner no.3 to M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy can only be charged, and that amount has been received by the petitioner no.3 from Shekhar Wankhede. The assertion in reply of respondent no.2 that no work in respect of setting up of a news channel has started as yet, therefore, appears to be correct. 11. Petitioners have along with their rejoinder placed photocopies, which run into almost 163 pages in an effort to demonstrate the work done by them for M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy. Petitioners have stated that those documents contain details of cumulative approaches made by the petitioners and the documentary material collected in discharge of the obligation put by the memorandum upon them. They have invested time and resources for preparing it, process it and to provide expert advise to Shri Wankhede and M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy. However, we note that the petitioners have not produced on record any cheques issued by them to any other person, institution or company for collecting said data or then details of salaries paid by them to their staff for undertaking any ground work. However, we note that the petitioners have not produced on record any cheques issued by them to any other person, institution or company for collecting said data or then details of salaries paid by them to their staff for undertaking any ground work. The contention of respondent no.2 that no work of news channel has commenced as yet, may mean that no office with necessary infrastructure or other facility has been provided for or then frequencies required to telecast the news has been procured. According to the petitioners, Shekhar Wankhede and his firm have to pay separately for this work. Petitioners may be correct and they may have only done necessary ground work to point out viability of such project and scope therein, but, even for that, if any funds are spent, the details thereof must have been mentioned in the audited accounts of petitioner no.3 or of any other petitioner, and could have been shown to respondent no.2 or to this Court to rebut the contention that petitioners have not done any work for either Shekhar Wankhede or for M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy. It is in this background, we proceed to peruse the various judgments to which our attention has been drawn. 12. Judgment of learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in case of Rajamani v. Inspector of Police, Salem and others (supra), relied upon by Shri Naik, learned counsel for petitioners shows that there the investigating officer did not complete necessary formalities or fulfill the requirements before freezing the accounts of a third party by taking recourse to Section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code. Notice was issued only to accused. The learned Single Judge therefore finds that mandatory conditions were not fulfilled in the matter. 13. 2004 All MR (Cri) 147 (Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank v. State of Maharashtra and others) is the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court where the word "any property", occurring in Section 102 has been interpreted. The learned Single Judge has found that it must be given widest possible meaning, and it must include such property found or parked anywhere and in any form, whether tangible or intangible. It has been further held that at the stage of seizure of property under Section 102, conflicting claims of persons claiming to be entitled to it need not be gone into. It has been further held that at the stage of seizure of property under Section 102, conflicting claims of persons claiming to be entitled to it need not be gone into. Thus, the amount in bank account is to be secured. There are provisions under Code of Criminal Procedure both at interim and final stage of trial, to seek return of any amounts genuinely due to any person. The claim is to be decided judicially and order so passed can be subjected to further scrutiny by the Higher Courts. In that matter, the petitioner NDCC Bank had claimed entitlement to Rs. 40 Crores on the ground that the amount invested by it has been returned back. A judgment of Division Bench of Delhi High Court reported at 1988 CriL.J. 241 (M/s. Swaran Sabharwal v. Commissioner of Police) has been looked into in paragraph no.7 (c) by the learned Single Judge. There the Division Bench of Delhi High Court has found doubt of police that sum proceeds realized by sale of official secrets, have been passed on to the petitioner by her husband insufficient to attract Section 102, as in that situation it cannot be said that bank account has been traced or discovered in circumstances which have made the police aware of commission of offence. The learned Single Judge has found that this Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court cannot be a good law after the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy reported at 1999 Cr.L.J. 4305. The Hon'ble Apex Court there in paragraph no.12 has stated that the bank account of accused or any of his relation is a property within the meaning of Section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in the course of investigation can seize it or prohibit the operation of the said account. 14. ICICI Bank Ltd v. State of Maharashtra (supra), is the other judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court. There the provisions of Section 102 and 457 of Criminal Procedure Code have been looked into. The above mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D.N., has been looked into in paragraph no.6. Petition was filed by a Scheduled Bank and respondent no.3 in that matter had opened a current account with it. The above mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D.N., has been looked into in paragraph no.6. Petition was filed by a Scheduled Bank and respondent no.3 in that matter had opened a current account with it. The facts looked into there show that the petitioner Bank had moved an application under Section 457, claiming the amount in bank accounts of respondent nos. 3,4 and 5 frozen during investigation. The petitioner Bank contended that it was defrauded by the said respondents to the tune of Rs. 36,65,76,000/-. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected that application holding that the Court was required to find out whether the amounts freezed by the Police was tainted money, whether it was concerned with the crime, whether the applicant was the only person who can claim that amount etc. The learned Single Judge upheld that order and maintained that source of money through which the amount came into frozen bank accounts needed to be ascertained first. Hence, at that stage, without such verification, application under Section 457 could not have been allowed. 15. Vinoskumar Ramchandran Valluvar v. The State of Maharashtra (supra), is the Full Bench judgment of this Court. The Full Bench has held that at the stage of investigation, notice of seizure is not required to be given to the account holder before or at the time of attachment of the bank account. In-fact this is not a bone of contention by the petitioners before us. Their only effort is to show that they are not accused and are not even privy to the crime by Shekhar Wankhede or M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy. It is apparent that the investigation is still going on, and the investigating officer at least as this stage has demonstrated that for money received by the petitioners, petitioners are not in a position to bring on record any expenses incurred. However, this is not a stage at which a finding can be finally recorded in this respect. 16. With the result, we find that the amounts earned by committing an offence by Shekhar Wankhede and his Firm have been found parked in the bank accounts of the petitioners. The action of respondent no.2 in freezing those accounts therefore, cannot be said to be illegal. 17. No case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. 16. With the result, we find that the amounts earned by committing an offence by Shekhar Wankhede and his Firm have been found parked in the bank accounts of the petitioners. The action of respondent no.2 in freezing those accounts therefore, cannot be said to be illegal. 17. No case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. With liberty to petitioners to take such other steps as are open to them in law, in the matter, we dismiss the Writ Petition. Rule discharged. No costs.