ARUNA DEVI SANKLA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner is challenging the order of respondent No. 1, served on respondent No. 2 - Bank, by which the petitioner's account in respondent No. 2 - Bank, has been directed to be frozen and, thus, rendering the said account inoperative.

(2.) THE question that arises for consideration of this Court is, whether, while exercising powers under Section 102 of the Cr.PC, respondent No. 1 was justified in directing respondent No. 2 to freeze the petitioner's Bank account. For better appreciation of the case, Section 102 of the Cr. PC is reproduced hereinbelow :

(3.) FACTS lie in narrow campass; petitioner is having a Savings Bank Account, bearing No. 6372/M - 22 with respondent No. 2 - Bank. The said account was opened by the petitioner some time in the year 1987 and, since then, she has been operating the same. The petitioner is also an assessee of Income Tax and is paying income tax. The petitioner is owner in possession of a house bearing No. 77 - B Padmavati Colony. The said house is duly registered in her name. The petitioner has several movable and immovable properties in the said house. Petitioner's husband has since expired. Some time in the month of August, 1994, petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 1 lac from Smt. Hemlata Bansal, resident of Agarwal Nagar, Indore at the interest of 15% per annum. The said loan was taken by a cheque drawn in her favour on 18.8.1994 of State Bank of Indore.