Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.Krishna Kumar
Savitha R Bhat, W/O Late B. Raghavendra Bhat – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial court's order on funds was problematic. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. failure to notify petitioner violates natural justice. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's duty to protect property rights. (Para 6) |
ORDER :
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.
This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 14.12.2023, passed in C.C.No.34083/2023 (arising out of Crime No.211/2023 of Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station) by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, whereby the Trial Court directed de-freezing and transfer of a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs from the account of the petitioner and to transfer the same to the account of respondent No.3.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the entire material on record will indicate that pursuant to the complaint given by respondent No.2, the first informant, which is registered as FIR in Crime No.211/2023, the respondent No.1 Police authorities, after conducting investigation, filed charge sheet arraigning one Mutturaj D and along with fourteen other accused persons. During the course of investiga
Orders impacting a person's rights, such as fund transfers, must respect natural justice principles, including providing notice and a chance to be heard.
Account holders have the right to be notified before their funds are transferred under court orders, ensuring protection of their rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Seizure of assets under S.102 CrPC requires compliance with statutory provisions and cannot be based solely on suspicion.
Court affirmed the validity of freezing a bank account under suspicion of crime while allowing withdrawal of unconnected funds.
Court emphasized the necessity of providing a hearing to affected parties before the execution of orders pertaining to the defreezing of accounts in criminal proceedings.
The court established that timely notification to the jurisdictional magistrate regarding account seizures is essential to uphold the rights of account holders under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
