SMRITI BAJAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter appears to have a chequered history. It is the case of the petitioner that she was subjected to cruelty and as such had to leave the residence of her husband and reside with her parents at Phoolbagan sometimes in 2015. She had also been made to file a mutual divorce proceedings at the behest of her husband. Criminal complaints were also lodged by the petitioner. At this stage, better senses prevailed and the family came to a settlement wherein an agreement was entered into on 9th February, 2016 between the petitioner and her husband where the petitioner was given a sum of rupees two crores as her security. The petitioner also returned to the husband's house after informing the Phoolbagan Police Station. All these things took place on or before 2016. It is the further case of the petitioner that the husband and the father-in-law of the petitioner did not fulfil their promise and in fact did not pay the premium of the insurance policies and wanted the same to become invalid.

(2.) On 14th February, 2020 the father-in-law of the petitioner, being the opposite party no.2, all on a sudden lodged a complaint with the New Alipore Police Station against the petitioner and her husband alleging that he has been cheated by the petitioner in connivance with his son, the husband of the petitioner. On the basis thereof the police initiated a proceeding under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner had to obtain anticipatory bail from this Court. The father-in-law of the petitioner being the opposite party no.2 alleging to the petitioner is, however, no proceeding against his son. The petitioner's complaint is that the money which admittedly belongs to the petitioner is lying in the bank in the form of fixed deposit and other deposits and the same have been freezed by the bank at the instance of the police authority pursuant to the complaint of the opposite party no.2. The petitioner says that she is in dire financial state and is unable to maintain herself and her two children as the petitioner's husband has virtually abandoned her with the two children. In such situation, the petitioner seeks de-freezing of the fixed deposit so that she is able to withdraw money to maintain herself and her two children.

(3.) On behalf of the opposite party no.2, it is submitted that the petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the court below is functioning and in respect of seizure there is an appeal provision. The petitioner have approached the court below by way of an appeal. Mr. Ray appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 further submits that the appeal provision is a statutory provision and filing a revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not be construed as an alternative remedy but should be strictly construed to be a bar in filing the revisional application. It is further submitted that freezing of accounts took place in February, 2020. The petitioner did not take any step even till March, 2020 when lock down owing to COVID 19 started operating. The petitioner has approached this Court to avail the sympathy and obtain favourable orders taking advantage of the situation. The investigation, according to the opposite party no.2, is going on and at this stage, no order should be made defreezing the fixed deposit. Mr. Ray on instruction further submits that charge sheet has already been filed and his client has filed "Naraji" petition.