Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
Hansaben W/o Sunilbhai Gulabsinh Padhiyar – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Special Criminal Application Nos. 2397, 2409, 2438, 2439 of 2020
Decided On : 24-09-2020
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3A - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 102 - Bank - “Freeze” the bank - Respondent-Bank has been instructed to “freeze” bank accounts of petitioners in exercise of powers under section 102 of Cr.P.C - Challenged - It is evident from record that investigating officer was well aware about the pendency of civil litigation and revenue proceedings between the parties regarding the subject land - When the issue was subject to civil jurisdiction before competent civil Court and revenue forum,\ investigating officer ought not to have initiated any action under the criminal jurisdiction in connection with the compensation awarded under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 - The property seized under section 102 of the Code has to be reported to the Magisterial Court having jurisdiction and if the property becomes subject matter of criminal complaint, then its outcome would be subject to the order that may be passed under sections 452, 453 or 457 of the Code, as the case may be.
Facts of the Case: Petitioners submitted that the competent authority has duly considered the objections filed by the complainant and other witness and has, thereafter, rejected the same by way of a reasoned order - It is not the case of the complainant and other witness that the objections jointly filed by him and other witness before the competent authority have not been adjudicated upon by the competent authority or that they have not been afforded reasonable opportunity to defend themselves - It was submitted that once the objections have been rejected on merits, the land owners are vested with the absolute right and privilege to withdraw the amount of compensation and to utilize the same in the manner they desire.
Finding of the Court: When the dispute is pending adjudication before two different forums where the parties are agitating their civil rights, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the order of “seizure” of the bank accounts of the petitioners - There appears to be no justification in “freezing” the bank accounts of the petitioners - All that the respondents seem to want to establish from the bank account is that some funds were transferred by Fatensinh Devjibhai Gohil to his relatives’ accounts - This can be proved at any time by comparison of the two accounts and since the entries in the accounts are always available, no purpose seems to be served by freezing the bank accounts of the petitioners - Hence, impugned communication issued by the respondent authority deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Result: Petitions are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
GITA GOPI, J.
RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. These petitions involve identical questions on law and facts and hence, they are decided by this common judgment.
1. Challenge in these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the communications dated 02.09.2019, 04.10.2019 and 10.10.2019 addressed by the respondent, Police Sub Inspector, Vadodara Taluka Police Station, Vadodara Rural to the respondent-Bank Manager, whereby the respondent-Bank has been instructed to “freeze” the bank accounts of the petitioners in exercise of powers under section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. For the purpose of narration of facts, Special Criminal Application No. 2409 of 2020 is taken as the lead matter:
2.1 It appears that on 09.09.2016, two individuals, viz. (i) Gajendrasinh Pratapsinh Parmar and (ii) Dharmendrasinh Gohil, filed objections before the competent authority on the basis of a sale deed in respect of the subject land executed in their favour on 06.09.2016. The competent authority passed award dated 05.09.2017, whereby the land bearing Block No. 116 of Village: Sherkhi, Taluka and District: Vadodara, ad-measuring 0-21-38 H-A-Sq. Meters, was acquired for a total compensation of Rs. 1,53,10,495/-. Proceeding under section 3H(3) of the Act was initiated for determining the persons who are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. After hearing both the sides, the competent authority rejected the objections and directed to make payment of compensation to the landowners, whose names are reflected in the Village Form No. 7/12 extract, vide order dated 25.10.2018.
2.2 It appears that on 23.09.2019 a first information report being C.R. No. I-56 of 2019 was lodged with Vadodara Taluka Police Station by one of the objectors - Gajendra Pratapsinh Parmar against all the 21 co-owners of the subject land inter alia alleging that the accused persons, in connivance with each other, fraudulently obtained the amount of compensation awarded in respect of the land admeasuring 0-25-00 H-A-Sq. Meters, out of the land admeasuring 0-94-09 H-A-Sq. Meters, of Block No. 116 (Old Revenue Survey No. 70/54), which was sold to the complainant and witness - Dharmendra Ravjibhai Gohil and the sale deed was executed on 06.09.2016. Out of the land allegedly sold in favour of the complainant, land admeasuring 0-18-85 H-A-Sq. Meters, has been acquired by the competent authority for the purpose of Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway. It is alleged that though the accused persons knew that the complainant and the other witness were legally entitled to receive the awarded amount, the accused persons received the entire awarded amount on the premise that their names appear as co-owners of the land in question in the Village Form No. 7/12 abstract and had thereby, committed the offence punishable under sections 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.3 During the course of investigation, the police allegedly found some incriminating material and accordingly, deemed it necessary to address the impugned communications to the respondent-bank instructing them to “freeze” the bank accounts of the individuals named therein. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the present petitions have been filed.
3. Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that the competent authority has duly considered the objections filed by the complainant and other witness and has, thereafter, rejected the same by way of a reason
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
