Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, J.
Dr.Varun Kumar – Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by The Inspector of Police (ADSP) Central Crime Branch, Egmore and ors. – Respondents
Crl.O.P.Nos. 14573 of 2017 & Crl.O.P.Nos.17112 and 24197 of 2015
Decided On : 26-06-2018
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 161, 397 and 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 90, 375, 503, 498A, 406, 417, 420, 506, 204, 34 and 415 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 – Sections 2, 3 and 4 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 4, 5 and 8 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 66 and 43 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Enforcement Act, 2002 - Section 4 - Promissory Relationship - Case of prosecution in short is that defacto complainant and petitioner had known each other which developed into a promissory relationship to get married - Both of them had enrolled themselves in an ias training academy and since defacto complainant did not clear her preliminary examination she had stayed back for a period of one year for helping to prepare for his main examination - Relationship between defacto complainant and was accepted by both their respective family members and it was mutually agreed that parties will get married - During their stay defacto complainant had pledged her jewelleries worth to help financially for preparation of his interview - After interview in month of april attitude of all petitioners herein changed and they had demanded a sum in cash of gold and a car on ground that he was an ips officer – Held, While exercising powers under section court does not function as a court of appeal or revision - Inherent jurisdiction under section though wide has to be exercised sparingly carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in section itself - it is to be exercised ex debit justified to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone courts exist - Authority of court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice court has power to prevent abuse - It would be an abuse of process of court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice - In exercise of powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve ends of justice - Petitions Stands Allowed.
Unfreezing of a bank account in the context of proceedings under the Information Technology Act, 2000, generally involves a review of the specific order or action that led to the account being frozen. According to the principles of law, such a measure is typically taken to prevent misuse of digital or electronic assets and is subject to judicial review to ensure it does not amount to arbitrary or unjustified action.
In the present context, if a bank account has been unfrozen, it would require a demonstration that the grounds for its initial freezing were either invalid, no longer applicable, or have been sufficiently addressed. The court or relevant authority may consider whether the freezing was based on a proper investigation, supported by evidence, and whether the conditions for maintaining the freeze are still met.
Since the proceedings under the IT Act, 2000, in the provided document do not specify the detailed procedural aspects of unfreezing a bank account, the general legal stance is that the unfreezing should be executed following a judicial or authorized order, which considers the facts of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the rights of the account holder.
In summary, unfreezing a bank account in the context of the IT Act involves: - A review of the order or reasons for freezing. - Submission of appropriate legal or procedural grounds demonstrating that the circumstances requiring the freeze no longer exist. - Compliance with due process, ensuring that the unfreezing does not prejudice ongoing investigations or legal proceedings.
If you need specific procedural steps or a draft application for unfreezing, please provide additional details about the case or the current status of the proceedings.
The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused in C.C.No.2036 of 2015 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai at the instance of the second respondent's complaint for offences under Sections 406, 417, 420, 506(i) IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as DP Act), Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 (herein after referred to as TNPHW Act) and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (herein after referred to as IT Act). The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.14573 of 2017 is the son of the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.24197 & 17112 of 2015.
2. The case of the prosecution in short is that the defacto complainant and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.14573 of 2017 had known each other since 2007, which developed into a promissory relationship to get married. Both of them, had enrolled themselves in an IAS Training Academy at New Delhi and since the defacto complainant did not clear her preliminary examination, she had stayed back in New Delhi for a period of one year for helping Dr.Varun Kumar to prepare for his main examination. The relationship between the defacto complainant and Dr.Varun Kumar was accepted by both their respective family members and it was mutually agreed that the parties will get married in the year 2012. During their stay at New Delhi, the defacto complainant had pledged her jewelleries worth more than Rs.1 lakh to help Dr.Varun Kumar financially for the preparation of his interview. After the interview in the month of April 2011, the attitude of all the petitioners herein changed and they had demanded a sum of Rs.50 lakhs in cash, 2 kgs of gold and a BMW Car for Dr.Varun Kumar on the ground that he was an IPS officer. When the defacto complainant had expressed her inability to meet the dowry demand, their relationship broke and became strained. Dr.Varun Kumar had then deleted the mails sent by his father to the defacto complainant in order to erase all the evidences of their relationships. In view of the dowry demand by all the petitioners herein and the failure to marry her contrary to the promise as well as the cruelty meted out to her, the petitioners herein have been charged for the offences under Sections 406, 417, 420, 506(i) IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000, which proceedings is under challenge in the present petitions.
3. Heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners (in Crl.O.P.Nos.17112 & 24197 of 2015), Mr.G.Arumugaraja (in Crl.O.P.No.14573 of 2017) and Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent as well as Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the second respondent in all the petitions.
4. Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the statements of the witnesses and the documents filed upon by the prosecution does not reveal the commission of any offence and as such, the framing of charges against the petitioners itself is liable to be quashed. By relying upon the statement of the witnesses and the documents, the learned Senior counsel submitted that none of the offences for which the petitioners have been charged is made out. In support of his contention, the learned Senior counsel relied on the relevant provisions of the offences for which they have been charged and various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the High Courts and submitted that there is no legally sustainable charges made out as against the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioner/Dr.Varun Kumar herein is a top ranking IPS officer and that the criminal complaint has been made as a vendetta for the purpose of damaging his reputation. He would also submit that the petitioner Dr.Varun Kumar as well as the defacto complainant had, during pendency of the investigation/framing of charges, had got
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
