SHAINUL DEVANI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that she was holding Savings Bank account with the respondent No.3-bank with Account No.333401502030, which has a balance of Rs.6,40,876.26 and that she was doing regular transactions in the said account. It is further case of the petitioner that in the first week of August, 2020, when she was not allowed to operate her account, she enquired with the respondent No.3 and came to know that her account was freezed. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No.3-bank gave her a copy of notice dtd. 5/8/2020 said to have been issued by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3-bank requesting to furnish the statement of account of the petitioner and also to freeze the said account for the purpose of investigation in Crime No.681/2020 on the file of Miyapur Police Station, registered for the offences under Ss. 420, 354, 363 and 506 of IPC. It is further case of the petitioner that neither she is concerned with the said crime nor she was arrayed as an accused in the said crime. The respondent No.2 without proper verification, has issued the impugned notice dtd. 5/8/2020 to the respondent No.3-bank and based on the said notice, the respondent No.3 freezed the account of the petitioner, without informing the petitioner, which is contrary to law and principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the bank account of the petitioner was freezed alleging to be a crime property in Crime No.681/2020 dtd. 23/7/2020 on the file of Miyapur Police Station. The petitioner has nothing to do with the said Crime and till date, the petitioner was not called by the police for any kind of investigation. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 has completed investigation in the said crime and filed charge sheet before the VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, at Kukatpally, Cyberabad and in the charge sheet, neither the petitioner was arrayed as an accused nor the bank account of the petitioner was shown as crime property. Further, there is no whisper in the charge sheet about the freezing of bank account of the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondents do not have any authority to freeze the bank account of the petitioner and ultimately, prayed to allow the writ petition, as prayed for.