ORDER : S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 14.12.2023, passed in C.C.No.34083/2023 (arising out of Crime No.211/2023 of Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station) by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, whereby the Trial Court directed de-freezing and transfer of a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs from the account of the petitioner and to transfer the same to the account of respondent No.3. 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the entire material on record will indicate that pursuant to the complaint given by respondent No.2, the first informant, which is registered as FIR in Crime No.211/2023, the respondent No.1 Police authorities, after conducting investigation, filed charge sheet arraigning one Mutturaj D and along with fourteen other accused persons. During the course of investigation, the respondent Police authorities issued notice under Section 41A to the petitioner, against whom charge sheet was filed as is clear from para.13 of the charge sheet in which the petitioner is described as accused No.9, who has been dropped from the charge sheet. Subsequently, in the aforesaid proceedings, the third respondent complainant filed the instant application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., seeking de- freezing of the account of the petitioner in State Bank of India, Channasandra Branch, bearing Account No.2025445794 and to transfer the said amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the account of the third respondent. 4. In this context, it is pertinent to note that, in view of the fact that the petitioner was dropped from the charge sheet and was not arraigned as an accused to the charge sheet, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to issue notice and notify the petitioner before proceeding to consider the application filed by respondent No.3, as held by this Court in the case of Sri. Rahul Chari and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others passed in Writ Petition No.2865/2022(GM-RES), disposed of on 17.10.2022 The relevant portion reads as under: "16. It not a case even where the suspect is not known. The name of the suspect is intimated in CCIR and also phone number of the suspect is indicated. The investigation ought to have been made for unearthing the fraud qua the alleged fraudster. It not a case even where the suspect is not known. The name of the suspect is intimated in CCIR and also phone number of the suspect is indicated. The investigation ought to have been made for unearthing the fraud qua the alleged fraudster. The complainant files an application before the concerned Court seeking recovery of money and from the personal account of 1 st petitioner the amount is directed to be transferred by the order of the learned Magistrate. The order passed on the application reads as follows: “ORDER ON THE APPICATION FILED BY PETITIONER UNDER SECTIONS 451 AND 457 OF Cr.P.C.” The petitioner by name Madhuri R.K. has filed recent application to direct the I.O. to defreeze the bank account No.05231140029395, HDFC Bank and transfer the freezed amount to the account of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, during the course of investigation, the IO has freezed the above said account. The petitioner is the complainant and the freezed amount belonging to the petitioner and there is no claim by others. The seized amount is very much necessary and required by the petitioner for her necessities. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and sought to allow the present application. On the said application, the report from the I.O. is called for and the I.O. has submitted the report, stating that he has no objection to release the freezed amount in favour of the petitioner on conditions. Learned Senior APP has filed objections Heard arguments of both sides. After hearing the arguments and perusal of the records reveals that the amount seized by the I.O. by freezing the account belongs to the accused and there is no rival claim by others. Therefore, the petitioner has made out grounds to allow the present application. Therefore, in view of the above, it is just and proper to allow the application filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The application filed by the petitioner by name Madhuri R.K. under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Accordingly, the offence is hereby directed to issue intimation to the HDFC Bank to defreeze the amount of Rs.69,143/- from the account No.05231140029395 and to transfer the said amount to the account of the petitioner namely ICICI Bank Account No.004701626126. Accordingly, the offence is hereby directed to issue intimation to the HDFC Bank to defreeze the amount of Rs.69,143/- from the account No.05231140029395 and to transfer the said amount to the account of the petitioner namely ICICI Bank Account No.004701626126. Accordingly, the petitioner is hereby directed to execute indemnity bond for Rs.69,143/- with a condition to indemnifying the said amount against third party claim and shall deposit the said amount as and when directed by this Court. Office to issue release order after execution of indemnity bond. Put up after final report.” (Emphasis added) The afore-quoted is the order passed by the learned Magistrate by which the amount that is held in the personal account of the 1 st petitioner is debited and transferred. The reason rendered would indicate that after hearing arguments and perusal of the records, it would reveal that the amount seized by the Investigating Officer is by freezing the account which belonged to the accused. The petitioners are not the accused and there is no rival claim by others. The petitioners are not even notified for any rival claim. It is only on these two grounds it is held that the petitioner therein has made out grounds to allow the application. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate directs the amount that is in the account and that has already been frozen should be defrozen and Rs.69,143/- should be immediately transferred to the account of the 2 nd respondent on execution of indemnity bond. 17. In the entire process the 1 st petitioner from whose account the amount is transferred is not even heard in the matter. Though the Court notices that the amount belongs to the victim/complainant, which accused is even known and there are no rival claimants, if notice is not issued to the account holder from whom debit is sought, there cannot be a rival claim. This rudimentary fact is given a go-bye by the learned Magistrate. The application under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. is dealt with by the learned Magistrate in a casual and cavalier manner. The amount however small it is, is the property of an individual in whose account, it is held. Such amount which is a right to property of the account holder cannot be taken away without even bringing to his knowledge. The amount however small it is, is the property of an individual in whose account, it is held. Such amount which is a right to property of the account holder cannot be taken away without even bringing to his knowledge. There has been a debit from the account of the 1 st petitioner for the purpose of satisfying the complainant. While the right of a complainant is to be looked into, since the complainant is a victim of a fraud, but the investigation cannot be cut short without unearthing the fraud and closing the issue, by transfer of amount from a third party, in the case at hand, from the personal account of the 1 st petitioner. All the factors will have to be borne in mind by the Magistrates while dealing with an application under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order, on the face of it, is arbitrary and cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 18. This Court is coming across scores and scores of cases where the account is frozen, defrozen and the amount that the complainant is due from a suspect or an accused is transferred to the account of the complainant from the account of third parties which action is contrary to all cannons of law. It has therefore, become necessary for this Court to direct the learned Magistrates that while dealing with applications under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., particularly in cases where it involves intermediaries like the petitioners, to hear those intermediaries and then direct transfer of the amount, and not allow the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C in a casual manner. 19. The learned Magistrates are required to note that they are dealing with the properties of third parties. Decision on an application under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. cannot become a frolicsome act on the part of the learned Magistrates merely because it is subject to indemnity. It is not the question of security but it is the question of right to property of an individual, from whose account the money is transferred without any information to him. Therefore, the learned Magistrates while considering the applications of the kind shall notice the following: (a) Whether the accused has been identified by the Investigating Officer? (b) Whether the account of the accused is identified by the Investigating Officer? Therefore, the learned Magistrates while considering the applications of the kind shall notice the following: (a) Whether the accused has been identified by the Investigating Officer? (b) Whether the account of the accused is identified by the Investigating Officer? (c) If the rival claimant is not an accused, whether intimation is given to the account holder, from whose account the money is sought to be transferred to the account of the complainant and such order of transfer of amount from the particular account shall only be after hearing the person, from whose account the money is sought to be transferred to the account of the complainant, before its transfer. 20. Freezing of account in terms of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. is a power that is available, but if the amount is sought to be transferred to any other account, the account holder whose account is frozen or de-frozen for the purpose of transfer of the amount shall be heard. The learned Magistrates considering the applications under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. shall bear in mind the aforesaid directions, while passing orders under the said provisions, only in the cases of the kind aforementioned. In the light of the preceding analysis, the purpose of Section 79 of the IT Act is not gone into. The contentions remain open. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Cr.No.256 of2021 is quashed. (ii) The amount debited from the account of the 1 st petitioner shall be refunded to his account forthwith. (iii) The 1 st respondent is directed to pursue the investigation pursuant to the complaint of the 2 nd respondent registered in Crime No.256 of 2021 dated 27-05-2021. (iv) Registry is directed to circulate the order to all the Magistrates." 5. In the instant case, as stated supra, before allowing the application filed by respondent No.3 under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., seeking transfer of an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs from the account of the petitioner to the account of the respondent No.3 by de-freezing the account of the petitioner, the Trial Court has neither notified the petitioner nor issued notice to her nor heard her before passing the impugned order. It is not only contrary to the principles laid down in the aforesaid order passed by this Court but also violative of the principles of natural justice, warranting interference in the present petition. 6. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER i. The petition is allowed ii. The impugned order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.34083/2023 (arising out of Crime No.211/2023 of Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station), is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the application dated 08.12.2023, filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. by respondent No.3 afresh, in accordance with law; iii. The petitioner and respondent No.3 undertake to appear before the Trial Court on 21.07.2025 without awaiting further notice from the Trial Court. iv. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file objections to the said application and the Trial Court shall hear both parties and proceed in accordance with law. All rival contentions of both parties and all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.