AMIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition had been filed by the petitioner Amit Singh for defreezing the Bank account of the petitioner bearing Account No.733910110001489 in Bank of India, Branch Panki, Kanpur Nagar and to allow the petitioner to operate his bank account. Subsequently by way of amendment the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dtd. 18/3/2021, contained in annexure no.11 to the writ petition by means of which the account of the petitioner has been got freezed by the respondent no.2 i.e. Station House Officer, Police Station-Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur Nagar in relation to Case Crime No.1504 of 2020, under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Kalyanpur, District- Kanpur Nagar.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the account of the petitioner has been seized in violation of the provisions made under Sec. 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.). The mandatory requirements of Sec. 102(3) Cr.P.C. has not been followed and the respondent no.2 has not informed the concerned Magistrate regarding seizure of the bank account, forthwith. Therefore the Constitutional right of property envisaged under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India has been infringed. Thus the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the respondents be directed to defreeze the account of the petitioner and allow him to operate the account. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in N.Padmamma and others Versus S.Ramkrishna Reddy and others, Civil Appeal No.3632 of 2008 decided on 16/5/2008; D.B.Basnett (D) through LRs.Versus The Collector East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and another; Civil Appeal No.196 of 2011 decided on 2/3/2020; Bajranga (Dead) by Lrs. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Civil Appeal No.6209 of 2010 decided on 19/1/2021; Ms Swaran Sabharwal Versus Commissioner of Police, 1990 (68) Comp Cas 652 Delhi (DB); Dr.Shashikant D.Karnik Versus The State of Maharashtra; 2008 Cri.LJ 148 (D.B.); Muktaben M.Mashru Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another; Crl M.C. 4206 of 2018, decided on 29/11/2019; Tmt.T. Subbulakshmi Vs. The Commissioner of Police; Crl. O.P. No.13103 of 2013 decided on 30/8/2013; Uma Maheshwari Vs. The State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Channai; Criminal O.P. No.15467 of 2013 decided on 20/12/2013; The Meridian Educational Society Vs. The State of Telangana; Writ Petition No.21106 of 2021 decided on 4/10/2021; State of Haryana Vs. Raghuveer Dayal; 1995 SCC (1) 133 and Chief Information Commissioner and Another Vs. State of Manipur and Another; 2011 (15) SCC 1.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the account of the petitioner has rightly been got freezed in accordance with law by the respondent no.2 as the consideration received out of the illegal transactions, in regard to which F.I.R. vide Case Crime No.1504 of 2020 (Supra) has been lodged, has been deposited in the said account, hence the same is the case property and it cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner.