JUDGMENT : Ext.P7 order issued by the investigating officer prohibiting the operation of the bank account maintained by the petitioner (the 2nd accused), her husband and son is under challenge. The crime was registered on the allegation of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 IPC in connection with the execution of a sale agreement between the parties. 2. Two statements were filed by the Public Prosecutor stating that the accused had collected an amount of Rs.45 lakhs on different occasions and lastly Rs.20 lakhs from the defacto complainant out of the sale consideration agreed, but did not register the property in the name of the defacto complainant. A civil suit-O.S.No.107/2019 was filed by the defacto complainant against accused Nos. 2 and 3 before the Sub Court, North Parur for return of the amount. It was also alleged that the signatures of the defacto complainant, his wife and son were forged in a subsequent agreement (Ext.P3). It is also reported that the husband of the petitioner, accused No.1, is involved in 26 cases in different police stations. 3. Section 102 Cr.P.C. is extracted below for reference: “Section 102-Power of Police Officer to seize certain property 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 in charge 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 and where the property seized is such that it cannot be, conveniently transported to the Court or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same. Provided that where the property seized under Sub-Section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of sections 457and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.” 4. For the purpose of Section 102 Cr.P.C., the bank account or the postal account of the accused or any of his relatives would be a “property” within the meaning of Section 102 Cr.P.C. and it is permissible to seize any amount or the account or to prohibit its operation by the police officer in the course of investigation. 5. In State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogi [ (1999) 7 SCC 685 ], the Apex Court had the occasion to consider whether the bank account of the accused would constitute “property” within the meaning of Section 102 Cr.P.C., whether a prohibition not to operate the account would constitute “seizure” for the purpose of that section and the circumstances under which the power can be exercised. The legal position was settled that the account maintained in a bank would constitute “property” within the meaning of Section 102 Cr.P.C. and that the police officer who investigates the commission of offence can either seize the property or prohibit its operation by virtue of the power under that section. 6. Then comes the question under what circumstance the power under Section 102 Cr.P.C. can be exercised and whether it can be extended to all kinds of properties belonged to the accused or his relatives. To exhaust the power under Section 102 Cr.P.C., it must be a property alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create the suspicion of commission of any offence under any provisions of law. The necessary corollary is that the property must either be a suspected stolen property or under the circumstance creates suspicion of any offence. The test to be applied whether the property is amenable for the application of Section 102 Cr.P.C. depends on the question whether the investigation could be completed without the seizure of that property or whether the investigation would stand defective on account of its non-seizure. The test to be applied whether the property is amenable for the application of Section 102 Cr.P.C. depends on the question whether the investigation could be completed without the seizure of that property or whether the investigation would stand defective on account of its non-seizure. To put it differently, there should be some sort of nexus to be traced out as part of investigation in relation to the property for the offence alleged to the extent that without which the investigation could not be completed or that it would remain defective on account of its non-seizure. In the absence of such a nexus connecting the property with the alleged offence, the power under Section 102 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised. Section 102 Cr.P.C. is not a substitute for the provision contained in the Code of Civil Procedure for effecting attachment of property either before or after judgment. The provision dealing with attachment before judgment or attachment in execution incorporated in the Code of Civil Procedure is having a larger canvass than what is incorporated under Section 102 Cr.P.C. 7. Further, any direction issued under Section 102 Cr.P.C. prohibiting operation of an account or seizure of any property must satisfy the compliance of requirement by submitting a report of prohibition or the seizure, where the property is of the nature that it cannot be conveniently transported to the court, to the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the subject. 8. In the instant case, what is involved is the non-performance of part of contract by the accused in a contract for sale of immovable property. The crime was registered on the allegation of offence under Section 406, 420, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 IPC. A civil suit is also pending before the Sub Court, North Parur in connection with the agreement for sale, for return of the amount paid. Mere receipt of amount by way of advance in furtherance of a contract for sale and failure to execute the sale would not itself bring the matter within the sweep of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The pendency of civil suit for return of the advance amount based on contract for sale would prima facie show admission of contractual obligation arising out of the said contract and it will not constitute an offence of cheating. The pendency of civil suit for return of the advance amount based on contract for sale would prima facie show admission of contractual obligation arising out of the said contract and it will not constitute an offence of cheating. The existence of some other criminal cases against the husband of the petitioner may not be a sufficient ground to exhaust Section 102 Cr.P.C. in the instant case. 9. The forgery of the signature as that of the defacto complainant, his son and wife in a subsequent agreement Ext.P3 is a subsequent event, by which no money transaction was effected. The bank account maintained by the petitioner, her husband and son has no direct nexus with Ext.P3 and the allegation of forgery. Hence Ext.P7 order is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.