Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 563 (TS)

Shainul Devani v. State of Telangana

2023-08-10

C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

body2023
ORDER : This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief: “…to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus thereby declaring the act of the Respondent No.3 in freezing the accounts of the petitioner as mentioned in the affidavit on the basis of the Letter dated 05.08.2020 issued by the Respondent No.2 is not only illegal, arbitrary but also contrary to the law and principles of natural justice and affecting the rights as envisaged under Article 14 and 19 of Constitution of India and consequently, quashing the letter issued by the Respondent No.2 and directing Respondent No.3 to defreeze the account of the Petitioner and pass such other order or orders…..”. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was holding Savings Bank account with the respondent No.3-bank with Account No.333401502030, which has a balance of Rs.6,40,876.26/- and that she was doing regular transactions in the said account. It is further case of the petitioner that in the first week of August, 2020, when she was not allowed to operate her account, she enquired with the respondent No.3 and came to know that her account was freezed. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No.3-bank gave her a copy of notice dated 05.08.2020 said to have been issued by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3-bank requesting to furnish the statement of account of the petitioner and also to freeze the said account for the purpose of investigation in Crime No.681/2020 on the file of Miyapur Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 354, 363 and 506 of IPC. It is further case of the petitioner that neither she is concerned with the said crime nor she was arrayed as an accused in the said crime. The respondent No.2 without proper verification, has issued the impugned notice dated 05.08.2020 to the respondent No.3-bank and based on the said notice, the respondent No.3 freezed the account of the petitioner, without informing the petitioner, which is contrary to law and principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 3. The respondent No.2 without proper verification, has issued the impugned notice dated 05.08.2020 to the respondent No.3-bank and based on the said notice, the respondent No.3 freezed the account of the petitioner, without informing the petitioner, which is contrary to law and principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the bank account of the petitioner was freezed alleging to be a crime property in Crime No.681/2020 dated 23.07.2020 on the file of Miyapur Police Station. The petitioner has nothing to do with the said Crime and till date, the petitioner was not called by the police for any kind of investigation. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 has completed investigation in the said crime and filed charge sheet before the VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, at Kukatpally, Cyberabad and in the charge sheet, neither the petitioner was arrayed as an accused nor the bank account of the petitioner was shown as crime property. Further, there is no whisper in the charge sheet about the freezing of bank account of the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondents do not have any authority to freeze the bank account of the petitioner and ultimately, prayed to allow the writ petition, as prayed for. 4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the expression ‘any property’ appearing in Sub-Section (1) of Section 102 of Cr.P.C, would include a bank account creating suspicion about commission of an offence. It is further argued that as per the information furnished by the accused, some bank accounts which were held in the names of the accused and their family members were identified and they include the bank account of the petitioner and therefore, the respondent No.2 has issued impugned notice dated 05.08.2020 to the respondent No.3-bank to furnish the details of bank account statement of certain accounts and also to freeze those accounts. 5. It is seen from the record that the de facto complainant-Kavya Devalla, lodged a complaint dated 23.07.2020 against one Thodupunuri Suboth Kumar and three others, before the Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad. 5. It is seen from the record that the de facto complainant-Kavya Devalla, lodged a complaint dated 23.07.2020 against one Thodupunuri Suboth Kumar and three others, before the Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.681/2020 was registered against said Thodupunuri Suboth Kumar and others for the offences under Sections 420, 354, 363, 506 of IPC. Pursuant to the same, the respondent No.2 has issued impugned Notice No.681/Cr/EOW/Cyb/2020 dated 05.08.2020 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C to the respondent No.3-bank to furnish the details of bank account statement of Account Nos. 1)024201517600, 2)180401527743 3)333401502030 4)111401514894, 5)180401512123 and 6) 004001620959 and also to freeze the said accounts. The operative portion of the impugned notice dated 05.08.2020, reads as follows: “With reference to the above cited subject, it is to inform that a case was registered vide reference cited above at Miyapur Police Station. During the course of investigation, it is came to know that the account A/C Nos.1)024201517600, 2)180401527743 3)333401502030 4)111401514894, 5)180401512123 and 6)004001620959 are having at ICICI Bank. Therefore, it is requested to furnish the Bank account statements of A/C Nos. 1) 024201517600, 2)180401527743 3)333401502030 4)111401514894, 5)180401512123 and 6) 004001620959 and also freeze the above accounts for the purpose of investigation. 1 Name of the account holder and documents submitted at the time of opening the Account. 2 KYC Details and Balance Sheet as on date. 3 Debit and Credit details from the date of opening of the accounts to till date. 4 PAN Numbers, Phone Numbers of account holders, if any. 5 Freeze the above Accounts. 6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that bank account of the petitioner was freezed alleging to be a crime property in Crime No.681/2020 dated 23.07.2020 on the file of Miyapur Police Station. The respondent No.2 in his counter affidavit stated that the Investigating Officer during the scrutiny of documents and as per the information furnished by the accused, identified some bank accounts held in the name of the accused and their family members and as per the confession of the accused, the bank account of the petitioner was freezed by issuing impugned notice dated 05.08.2020 to the respondent No.3-bank. It is further stated that after conducting investigation in the said Crime No.681/2020 and after collecting all necessary documentary evidence, the Investigating Officer effected arrest of Accused Nos.1 to 4 on 31.07.2020 and remanded them to judicial custody. After completing investigation, the charge sheet was also laid against A.1 to A.4 on 18.12.2021 and the learned VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Kukatpally, has taken cognizance of the case as C.C.No.1050/2021. Thus from the contents of the counter affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner was neither arrayed as an accused nor the bank account of the petitioner was shown as crime property to exercise the power under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. 7. It is apt and appropriate to extract Section 102 of Cr.P.C, which reads as follows: “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 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.” Sub-Section (1) of Section 102 of Cr.P.C states that 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. Therefore, the condition precedent for seizure of any property is that such property should be alleged or suspected to have been stolen; or the property is found in such circumstances which create suspicion of commission of any offence. 8. Even though the learned Government Pleader for Home contended that the expression ‘any property’ appearing in Sub-Section (1) of Section 102 of Cr.P.C, would include a bank account creating suspicion about commission of an offence, nonetheless to exercise the power conferred under Sub-Section (1) of Section 102 of Cr.P.C, the above pre-conditions must be fulfilled. In the absence of fulfillment of such pre-conditions, exercise of power by the police seizing any property or debit freezing bank account would be illegal. It is well settled that attachment or debit freezing of bank account is a drastic measure which vitally infringes the valuable rights of a person. Therefore, it is mandatory that any police officer exercising power under Section 102 of Cr.P.C, must satisfy the conditions precedent before proceeding to debit freezing any bank account. 9. On careful examination of the impugned notice dated 05.08.2020, this Court do not find that respondent No.2 has suspected that the bank account contains money which are alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which creates suspicion of commission of any offence. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, it is categorically stated that as per the information furnished by the accused, some bank accounts held in the name of the accused and their family members, were identified and to freeze those accounts, which includes the petitioner’s account, the impugned notice was issued. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, it is categorically stated that as per the information furnished by the accused, some bank accounts held in the name of the accused and their family members, were identified and to freeze those accounts, which includes the petitioner’s account, the impugned notice was issued. Further, it was admitted that the police has also filed charge sheet wherein the petitioner was neither arrayed as an accused nor the petitioner’s bank account was shown as crime property. 10. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie view that respondent No.2 without properly verifying the facts and in the absence of any material, came to conclusion that the bank account of the petitioner is required to be freezed as it creates suspicion of the commission of any offence and without even reporting the seizure of the bank account of the petitioner to the concerned Magistrate, the respondent No.2 has issued the impugned notice dated 05.08.2020. Since the respondent No.2 has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 102 of Cr.P.C, this Court is of the opinion that impugned notice dated 05.08.2020 issued by the respondent No.2 amounts to non-application of mind and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 05.08.2020 issued by the respondent No.2 is hereby set aside and the respondent No.3-bank is directed to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner, forthwith. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.