Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALOK ARADHE, J.
V. Veera Kumar - Appellant
Versus
ICICI Bank, Represented By Its Regional Manager - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 17791 of 2018
Decided On : 26-04-2019
Sampat Anand Shetty, Adv., Y.D. Harsha, Adv., Francis Xavier, Adv.
The court emphasized the need for a strong suspicion before freezing a bank account, and the balancing of conflicting interests in the interest of justice.
Headnote:
Freezing of Bank Account - Alleged Financial Irregularities - Crime No.73/2018 - [FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES] - [CRIMINAL LAW, SECTION 21] - The court directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank account, emphasizing the need for a strong suspicion against the petitioner before freezing the account, and balancing the conflicting interests of the petitioner, the investigating agency, and the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's bank account was frozen by the Police Department based on an FIR registered as Crime No.73/2018, relating to alleged financial irregularities by Vikram Investment Company. The petitioner claimed innocence and sought de-freezing of the account.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no strong suspicion against the petitioner and emphasized the adverse impact of freezing the account on the petitioner's right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It directed the de-freezing of the account upon the petitioner submitting a bond of Rs.14,00,000 before the Sessions Judge.
Issues: The main issue was the justification of freezing the petitioner's bank account based on alleged financial irregularities by Vikram Investment Company, and the balancing of conflicting interests of the petitioner, the investigating agency, and the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of strong suspicion against the petitioner, the adverse impact of freezing the account on the petitioner's rights, and the need to balance conflicting interests in the interest of justice.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the direction to de-freeze the petitioner's bank account upon submission of a bond of Rs.14,00,000 before the Sessions Judge.
Alok Aradhe, J.
Mr.Sampat Anand Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr.Francis Xavier, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. The petitioners is aggrieved by the letter dated 31.03.2018, issued by the Police Department to the Bank Manager, ICICI Bank, wherein the Police Inspector has directed the Bank to freeze the account bearing No.029701503737, belonging to the petitioner.
4. According to the petitioner, he came in contact with one Mr. Sutram Suresh, who was a sports journalist. Mr. Suresh suggested to the petitioner No.1 that he should invest his money in a firm that he knew that deals with commodities exchange. Based on the assurances given by Mr. Suresh, the petitioner started investing his money with M/s. Vikram Investment Company, from whom he earned his returns. The petitioner claims that subsequently, since the investment was getting to be a large one, he pulled out his investment from the said Company. However, whatever he has earned as his returns from the said Company, he has declared the same and paid his taxes. He has also paid the commission earned by Mr. Suresh. Therefore, the petitioner was shocked and dismay to learn that his account with the ICICI Bank has been frozen. Initially, the Bank did not divulge any details, or give any reasons for freezing his account. Subsequently, petitioner was informed that due to an FIR registered as Crime No.73/2018, which relates to the Vikram Investments Company. Therefore, the petitioner sought a copy of the said Crime No.73/2018, which he received. Hence this petition before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no evidence, oral or documentary, which has been discovered by the Investigating Agency that will show any livelink between the petitioner, and the alleged offences committed by the Company. Therefore, the suspicion entertained by the Investigating Agency is in the realm of conjectures and surmises. According to the learned counsel, it is not even a prima facie suspicion, as there is no evidence to point a needle of suspicion towards the petitioner. Moreover, if the case of the Investigating Agency is that the petitioner have been paid Rs.19,00,000/-by the Company more than what they deserved, the petitioner is willing to give a bond for the said amount. But the Investigating Agency is not justified in freezing the entire account, as the account. Moreover, due to the freezing of the account, the petitioner is facing financial crisis as he cannot make any further financial investments, and cannot lead a normal life. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this court should direct that the account should be de-freezed by the Investigating Agency, and by the Bank, provided, the petitioner give a bond of the said amount of such amount as directed by this Court.
6. According to Mr.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA for respondent No.3, the petitioner have been paid by the Vikram Investment Company, more than what should have been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the Investigating Agency is of the prima facie opinion that the company has siphoned off and paid more amount to the petitioner than it should have, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant, Mr. Balaji, and wrongful gain to the petitioner. Hence, the Investigating Agency suspects, at this stage, that the petitioner may be involved in the illegal acts being committed by the company. It is on this basis that the Investigating Officer had directed the Bank to freeze the petitioners' Savings Account.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. A bare perusal of the letter dated 31.03.2018 written by the Inspector of Police, Banashankari Police Station, clearly reveals that on 03.03.2018 a complaint was filed by Mr. P. R. Balaji, wherein
