ORDER : P. Naveen Rao, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. Petitioner alleges that the unofficial respondent No. 4 filed a private complaint before IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, with false averments, stating that her husband has taken Rs. 71,00,000/- from him and from his friends for the purpose of establishing hospital and cheated him. Based on a reference by the learned Magistrate, complaint was registered in Nallakunta Police Station as Crime No. 96 of 2019. Thereafter, husband of the petitioner was arrested. In the course of investigation, police have also seized the Car of the petitioner bearing registration No. TS 10EK 9848 and gold ornaments. The police have also addressed letters to the ICICI Bank at UCON Plaza, near Navrang Theatre, Park Road, Kurnool, where the petitioner maintained bank accounts, mortgaged her gold ornaments and taken loan for an amount of Rs. 13,41,000/-. Having come to know that her Car and gold loan account were seized by the respondent - police, this writ petition is filed praying to declare the action of the respondent - police in seizing the Car of the petitioner and gold loan account, as illegal and arbitrary, and seeks consequential direction to respondent No. 3 to forthwith release the Car of the petitioner and defreeze the bank accounts. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is nothing to do with the crime reported against the husband of the petitioner. He further submits that the Car as well as gold loan accounts belongs to her and therefore merely because husband of the petitioner is shown as accused in a crime is no ground to seize the Car of the petitioner and to freeze her bank account. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home produced copy of the charge sheet filed on 29.08.2020 before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. From this charge sheet, it is seen that the petitioner herein is shown as accused No. 2. From the contents of the charge sheet, it is also seen that as per the confessional statement of accused No. 1 i.e., the husband of the petitioner, accused habitually commits the offences of cheating indulges in breach of trust and he along with several other associates involved in two other crimes. From the contents of the charge sheet, it is also seen that as per the confessional statement of accused No. 1 i.e., the husband of the petitioner, accused habitually commits the offences of cheating indulges in breach of trust and he along with several other associates involved in two other crimes. It is further alleged that accused No. 1 collected a sum of Rs. 71,70,000/- from LW. 1 who contributed the same towards funding the Multi-speciality Hospital to be run by accused No. 2, but said sum was diverted for doing micro finance business. It is further alleged that the petitioner and her husband utilised the illegal money to buy gold ornaments, then deposited the gold to obtain loans from IIFL, Kurnool, and Mannappuram Kadapa. It is further alleged that accused No. 1 has obtained loan by mortgaging the gold on 07.03.2019 for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The charge sheet further alleged that accused No. 2 is also involved in crimes; she was running micro finance business from out of the amount illegally obtained by her husband; she is having three gold loan accounts in ICICI bank and all loans were taken in March, 2019. It is further alleged the Motor Car bearing registration No. TS 10EK 9848 was purchased from out of the money obtained from LW. 1. 5. Thus, from the reading of the charge sheet, prima facie, it discloses that purchasing of Car and operating of the concerned gold loan accounts are traceable to the crime of cheating and breach of trust allegedly reported by the complainant. Bank account is also a property and therefore the provisions of Section 102 Cr.P.C. are attracted to freeze bank accounts in the process of investigation into the crime. 6. In W.P. Nos. 13363 and 10565 of 2020, dated 03.12.2020, the very issue was considered and this Court held as under: "17. To appreciate the respective submissions, it is necessary to understand the scope of Section 102 Cr.P.C. It reads as under: "S. 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. (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, 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." 18. It is beyond pale of doubt that the bank account is also the property and falls within the ambit of Section 102 of Cr.P.C. From the plain reading of this section, it is apparent that property can be seized by the Police Officer if it is alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of offence. It is part of investigation into the crime. The Investigating Officer can seize the property, which is suspected to have been involved in crime, at any stage of the investigation. 19. Once it is seized, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to preserve the said property so that evidence is not tampered/ destroyed frustrating the investigation and trial. In Navada Properties Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the scope of Section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code, particularly, what is meant by 'any property'. To the extent relevant paragraph 20 reads as under: "20……… Equally important, for the purpose of interpretation is the scope and object of Section 102 of the Code, which is to help and assist investigation and to enable the police officer to collect and collate evidence to be produced to prove the charge complained of and set up in the charge sheet. The Section is a part of the provisions concerning investigation undertaken by the police officer. After the charge sheet is filed, the prosecution leads and produces evidence to secure conviction. The Section is a part of the provisions concerning investigation undertaken by the police officer. After the charge sheet is filed, the prosecution leads and produces evidence to secure conviction. Section 102 is not, per se, an enabling provision by which the police officer acts to seize the property to do justice and to hand over the property to a person whom the police officer feels is the rightful and true owner. This is clear from the objective behind Section 102, use of the words in the Section and the scope and ambit of the power conferred on the Criminal Court vide Sections 451 to 459 of the Code. The expression 'circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence' in Section 102 does not refer to a firm opinion or an adjudication/finding by a police officer to ascertain whether or not 'any property' is required to be seized. The word 'suspicion' is a weaker and a broader expression than 'reasonable belief' or 'satisfaction'. The police officer is an investigator and not an adjudicator or a decision maker…………..." (emphasis supplied) 25. In both cases, Police suspect the diversion of money of first petitioner firm in W.P. No. 13363 of 2020 and the money of the society in W.P. No. 10565 of 2020 to the other accounts of the petitioners. The investigation is not completed. It is not ascertained whether there was diversion of money, if so, how much. Thus, suspected properties have to be protected from destruction, wiping out evidence and swindling away the money, frustrating the investigation. Thus, at this stage, defreezing the bank accounts might cause hindrance to investigation. In exercise of equitable and discretionary jurisdiction, Court cannot invite a situation that will impinge upon unearthing/preventing crime and frustrate the investigation. When Court is confronted with the claim against defreezing the bank account on the ground of delay in reporting to the Magistrate about freezing account vis-à-vis the suspicion of diversion of money directly attributable to crimes, the Court has to lien in favour of allowing the Police Officer to continue his investigation and not to interfere with his decision to freeze the bank accounts per se. 26. Further no, right of petitioners' is infringed, except, they were denied operating their bank accounts for a limited period. This is a necessary concomitant when the concerned bank accounts are suspected to have been involved in pending crimes. 26. Further no, right of petitioners' is infringed, except, they were denied operating their bank accounts for a limited period. This is a necessary concomitant when the concerned bank accounts are suspected to have been involved in pending crimes. of course, caveat is decisions to freeze bank accounts must be bona fide, not intending to harass the accused, must be in compliance of Section 102 of Cr.P.C. But these are matters for consideration by the concerned Magistrate as and when an application is moved before him to defreeze the bank accounts. 28. In Mohd. Maqbool Ahmed (supra), the Division Bench considered whether delay in reporting vitiates freezing per-se. It was urged that sub-section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C., was not complied. The Division Bench held as under: "8. In two eventualities, a police officer, acting under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C., may seize any property (i) alleged or suspected to have been stolen; or (ii) found under circumstances creating suspicion of commission of an offence. The finding of property need not always precede the suspicion of commission of an offence in relation to that property. Once it is suspected by a police officer that a crime has been committed and in the course of the investigation, he comes across any property, which is involved or suspected to have been involved or has any link with the crime under investigation, in our view, he has power to effect seizure of that property under sub-section (1) of Section 102 Cr.P.C. Any other interpretation would be totally unrealistic and frustrate the attempts of the investigating agency to effectively detect the crimes." 28.1. The Division Bench affirmed the view taken by the Madras High Court in Bharat Overseas Bank vs. Minu Publications 1988 (2) Crimes 156. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench reads as under: "On the question as to the failure on the part of the police officer to report the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C., the learned Judge held: "Not every flaw in investigation, would invalidate proceedings. It would be premature now, to judge prejudice caused to the accused. If the second respondent has not reported about the seizure to the Court yet, he shall do the same forthwith. It would be premature now, to judge prejudice caused to the accused. If the second respondent has not reported about the seizure to the Court yet, he shall do the same forthwith. In the event of a trial, it would be open to the accused to put forward this plea of prejudice in the light of the facts available." In our considered opinion, this is the correct legal position. So far as the present case is concerned, there is no allegation in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the requirement of Sub-section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C., was breached. For the first time in the reply affidavit, this plea was taken and the learned Government Pleader contends, rightly, that the averments in the reply affidavit cannot be the basis for the writ petition. Even assuming that mere was non-compliance of the requirement of Sub-section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C., in that the police officer has not informed the jurisdictional Magistrate about the factum of seizing of the bank accounts of the petitioners herein, such a course of action would not invalidate the order passed Under Sub-section (1) of Section 102 Cr.P.C., freezing the bank accounts. We make it clear that it is always open to the petitioners to move the criminal Court after the charge-sheet is filed for appropriate orders as to the handling of bank accounts and the criminal Court will pass suitable orders in the light of the fact situation." (Emphasis supplied) 31. At this stage, it is apt to note the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal - [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that: (SCC p. 359, para 40): "… the field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within the domain of the investigating agencies over which the courts cannot have control and have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions relating to investigation…." 37. Further, whether Police Officer applied his mind and satisfied on fulfilment of ingredients of seizure are matters for consideration by trial Court and it is permissible for the accused to raise such pleas, before the learned Magistrate but not in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 38. Further, whether Police Officer applied his mind and satisfied on fulfilment of ingredients of seizure are matters for consideration by trial Court and it is permissible for the accused to raise such pleas, before the learned Magistrate but not in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 38. Section 451 of Cr.P.C., enables the trial Court to grant interim custody pending trial. Similarly, Section 457 also vests power in the Magistrate to deal with the property as deemed proper and necessary. An accused whose property is seized by police officer can file application to grant interim custody. This is an effective and efficacious remedy. 39. Though, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the jurisdiction of the writ Court is very wide and all pervading wherever and whenever, by the conduct/decision of a public authority rights of a person are infringed. But the constitutional Courts are slow in entertaining the writ petitions where statutory scheme envisages certain procedures and aggrieved party has statutorily engrafted remedies. 40. In these two cases, the Police have already intimated seizing of bank account to the concerned Magistrate. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., vest power in the concerned Magistrate to grant interim custody of the crime property and it is always open to an aggrieved person to file appropriate application for granting interim custody. The subject bank accounts are the crime properties in the respective crimes and the seizure is already intimated to the concerned Magistrates. Therefore, it is deemed that the property is in the custody of the said Courts. In exercise of power of judicial review, writ Court cannot trench into the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate to deal with the crime property and order for release of crime property on the grounds as urged in these writ petitions. [Mohd. Mazbool Ahmed @ Mateen and another vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Investigation Team, Hyderabad and others - 1996 (3) ALT 215 (D.B.)]. As held by the Division Bench in the above case, it is always open to the petitioners to file appropriate application before the criminal Court regarding handling of bank accounts." 7. The view expressed in the said decision applies to the case also. As held by the Division Bench in the above case, it is always open to the petitioners to file appropriate application before the criminal Court regarding handling of bank accounts." 7. The view expressed in the said decision applies to the case also. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the seizure of Car and freezing of gold loan accounts of the petitioner amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and authority warranting interference by this Court. 8. Thus, if petitioner wants interim custody of the seized property, it is open to her to file appropriate application before the concerned Magistrate. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy as available in law. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.