SAMPI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short grievance of the petitioner-company is as to seizure of his Bank Account vide Notice dtd. 25/6/2022 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent-Police. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for effecting such a seizure that has put his client to grave difficulties in the day-to-day activities of the company. He adds that his client would be more than ready & willing to furnish the bank guarantee for a period of six months with periodic renewal for security of the amount in the subject bank account which would serve the interest of Investigating Agency.

(2.) On request, learned AGA having accepted notice for the respondents (notice to respondent No.3-Bank having been dispensed with), opposes the petition contending that decision in such matters lies in the exclusive domain of the investigating officer in the light of LALITHA KUMARI VS. GOVT. OF U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 and therefore, ordinarily, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. In support of his contention, he also places reliance on the decision of this Court in SMT. M.DIVYALAKSHMI VS STATION HOUSE OFFICER & ANOTHER in W.P.No.15153/2021 (GM-POLICE) disposed off on 23/9/2021. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that should the respondent-Investigating Officer, accept the proposal of the petitioner and the bank guarantee accordingly is furnished with a renewal clause, the purpose of seizing the account would be more than served and thus, the requirement of such a seizure would cease. The other contentions may not merit consideration in view of the fair stand taken by the petitioner before the Court.