Point of Law: Un-freezing of account - Notice quashed - Unless and until there is a strong suspicion against the petitioners, police would not be justified in freezing account belonging to petitioners. For, such freezing of account adversely affects right to life under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

ORDER :

Notice issued to respondent No.2 is served, but respondent No.2 is not represented.

2. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought to quash the notice dated 22.06.2020 at Annexure-A issued by the Police Inspector, CEN Police Station, Yadgiri, to the Manager of Axis Bank, Yadgiri for de-freezing petitioner's account No.278010100061117 and linked account numbers.

3. The request at Annexure-A by the Police Inspector, appears to be in connection with an investigation relating to Crime No.4/2020 of Yadgiri CEN Police Station which was registered on a complaint lodged by respondent No.2.

4. The gist of the complaint is that, complainant received a mail on 27.05.2020 stating that she has won Rs. 48,47,80,346/-lottery and to transfer the said amount, she has to login to certain user ID. Accordingly, she entered the password and the user name provided and filled-up the information requested. In response, she was asked to deposit certain amount to the account numbers provided. As such, between 06.05.2020 to 10.06.2020, a total sum of Rs. 3,73,899/-was deposited to those accounts. Thereafter, no amount as assured was transferred to her account and thereby she was cheated by some unknown persons.

5. The notice at Annexure-A to defreeze the bank account pertaining to the petitioner appears to be on the ground that transaction of Rs. 99,999/-made by the complainant to the Axis Bank account bearing No.278010100061117, belong to the petitioner.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is running Chain Electronics Stores in Delhi. The proceeds of the business were transferred to the premium company account that was maintained at Axis Bank, Dwarka Branch, Delhi. It is submitted that the petitioner was taken by surprise on receiving an intimation from Axis Bank that his account has been frozen and no debit card transactions can take place, which is certainly on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2. It is submitted that revised notice is also issued ordering for a complete freezing of petitioner’s current account and to freeze all the linked accounts.

7. It is also contended that the petitioner is nowhere involved in the crime that has been alleged and freezing of the account of the petitioner, both business and personal has severely affected the livelihood of the petitioner and he is unable to make ends meet as he has no alternative source to meet his financial obligations.

8. The learned counsel for petitioner has further contended that the petitioner is carrying out a legitimate business and he is able to justify each credit transaction that has taken place and therefore the freezing of petitioner’s account, without following due procedure, is wholly arbitrary.

9. The learned counsel for petitioner has also contended that Crime No.4/2020 was registered by the respondent/police on 29.06.2020 and even prior to registration of the case, as per the endorsement in the notice, the concerned bank has been intimated to freeze petitioner's bank account on 22.06.2020. He submits that the freezing of account by respondent No.1 without informing the petitioner and without affording him an opportunity is in violation of the principles of natural justice and also in violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

10. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions :

i. Mr.Prakash Padukone and others vs. State of Karnataka [W.P.No.13516-13518/2018 (GM-POLICE) -4.04.2018];

ii. Smt.Neeta Shanthilal vs. State of Karnataka [Crl.Pet.No.5847/2016 -18.08.2016];

iii. Uma Maheshwari v. The State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai Criminal O.P.Nos.15467 of 2013 and connected matters dated 20.12.2013].

11. The learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that as per complaint averments complainant was asked to deposit certain amount and a sum of Rs. 99,999/-was deposited in