VIPUL RAGASHE Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

(2.) Mr. D. Raghavendar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Crime No.309 of 2022 was registered on 10/5/2022 under Sec. 120-B, 406, 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC, 35, 6-C, 66-D, 72, 74 of IT Act, 2008. He submits that the unofficial respondent is wife of the petitioner and she has approached the SHO, Cyberabad alleging that the petitioner is her husband and they are blessed with a child and that the petitioner and others have committed fraud, forgery, criminal breach of trust, cheating by impersonation against the company and the complainant and others. Basing on that, a complaint was registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that though they were separated on 16/10/2021, the unofficial respondent herein only with an intention to harass the petitioner has filed a complaint.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that initially, a notice was issued under Sec. 91Cr.P.C wherein, it was addressed to the Branch Manager of respondent No.6 and in that, they have sought for the information and also asked the bank to seize the bank account. He submits that under Sec. 91Cr.P.C, the respondent officers have no authority to seize the account and basing on the said communication received from the respondent police, the bank authorities have seized the petitioner's account on 18/8/2022. Thereafter, the petitioner has come to know about the same and they have also approached the respondent bank as well as respondent police. He submits that Sec. 102(3) Cr.P.C stipulates that if the seizure is effected, the same has to be informed to the court forthwith, whereas, in this case, when the seizure was effected on 18/8/2022, the same was informed to the court on 15/9/2022. He submits that he has filed the writ petition on 14/9/2022 and after filing of the writ petition, the same was placed before the Magistrate on 15/9/2022.