ANAND PROPERTY FINANCE LTD. Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in directing the 4th respondent, without any information to the petitioner, to freeze the petitioner's bank account bearing No. 400280674777 with RBI, Andheri Marol Branch, IFSC Code RATN0000192 as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vishal Porandla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a nonbanking financial company registered under the Companies Act with an aim to provide financial services. It performs the functions of delivering credit to the underprivileged, underserved segments of the society through small loans for serving their various needs. It is submitted that the petitioner is a lending facility designed to empower various poor and underprivileged people and operates through its fintech partners who own and operate platforms through which the loans are procured by the underprivileged Sec. of the society. It is submitted that on 5/3/2022, while trying to make transaction from its RBL Bank Account No. 400280674777 with Andheri Marol Branch, all of a sudden, the transaction was declined. It is submitted that on enquiry with the 4th respondent bank, the petitioner was orally informed that upon instructions of the 3rd respondent to freeze the bank account, the same was frozen on 15/3/2022 and the account continues to be frozen even as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the respondent bank has not given any further information and it is also informed to the 3rd respondent that their actions are causing severe business loss and damage to the petitioner. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent simply stated that FIR No. 325 of 2022 was registered on the basis of the complaint given by one R. Jhansirani and they are conducting investigation and the procedure will go on and he cut the call abruptly. He submits that the case of the complainant is that due to some family emergency, she needed a loan and she searched on Google Play Store where she saw the cash pocket App and she has submitted all her details along with her Aadhar card, pan card and selfie photo and that she has taken a loan of Rs.5,500.00 and within five days, she had paid Rs.10,000.00 and in the same way, she had taken multiple loans from few Apps. She also alleges that in time, she is unable to pay and the petitioner has suggested her to take a loan from other Apps for which they sent links. A total amount of Rs.75,000.00 has been transferred to her account from 35 Apps. She stated that she has repaid Rs.1,73,046.00 and the petitioner company is blackmailing to pay the amount again and sending morphed photos, videos, Aadhar card, pan card copies to all her contact lists. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that all these allegations are made with an intention to cause disrepute to the petitioner's company and nothing has been established by the complainant. It is submitted that the de facto complainant is not a customer to the petitioner company and the company is no way connected with the said crime. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the bank has adopted a very arbitrary approach while freezing the accounts of the petitioner company without bothering to scrutinize the entries and nature of transactions. He submits that before exercising the power under Sec. 102 Cr.P.C., the police officer has to assess the need to freeze the bank account and after formation of an opinion, supported by reasons he can freeze. According to him, in the instant case, no reasons are stated and with an ulterior motive, he has bypassed the law and seized the accounts of the petitioner company. He submits that the action of the 3rd respondent in not informing the magistrate forthwith is also in gross violation of Sec. 102(3) Cr.P.C. and the entire action of the 3rd respondent is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that before freezing the account, no notice is given to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner having no other alternative has come up before this Court.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader for Home Sri Srikanth Reddy basing on the written instructions, submits that during the course of investigation into the complaint of the complainant and other cases, the 3rd respondent has sent notices to Razor Pay Payment Gateway with a request to furnish the details of all the loan Apps and also obtained the details of beneficiary account holders involved in the money transactions in the said cases. It is submitted that during the investigation, the respondent police came to know that one of the beneficiary with A/c No. 400280674777 of RBL Bank has been involved in the said case, as such, notice was sent to the RBL bank and got freezed the said account. It is submitted that notice was issued to the petitioner to submit certain information pertaining to the petitioner company and its activities for the purpose of investigation and intimation was given to the Hon'ble XII ACMM Court, Nampally, Hyderabad regarding freezing of the said account. It is submitted that regularly huge numbers of victims are approaching the Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad and so far, more than 50 cases regarding harassment by loan Apps were registered at Cyber Crime P.S., CCS., DD, Hyderabad and petitions were also being received and enquired into by them.