JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioners right to manage and administer its affairs/property including its Bank Accounts and consequently, pass an order to de-freeze the petitioner's Bank Account viz. 102805000271 in the ICICI Bank Ltd. Egmore Branch, Chennai in the interests of justice.

1. The writ on hand has been instituted to forbear the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's right to manage and administer its affairs/property including its Bank Account and consequently, pass an order to de-freeze the petitioner's Bank Account viz. 102805000271 in the ICICI Bank Ltd. Egmore Branch, Chennai.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner is a Private company and not connected with any of the allegations. The affidavit filed by the writ petitioner in support of the present writ petition, there is no details regarding the initiation of criminal prosecution or otherwise.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the Bank Account of the petitioner is frozen without any basis and without following the procedures and therefore, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

4. It is contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 102 Cr.P.C. has not been followed. It is further stated that the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in the criminal case registered by the second respondent / Inspector of Police.

5. At the outset, the petitioner pleads innocence and ignorance of any of the allegations set out in the criminal case and further, says that the account belongs to the petitioner is frozen by not following the procedures as contemplated. It is further stated that the allegations in the F.I.R. is also not relatable to the business activities of the petitioner and further, even presuming the allegations are taken as it is, it cannot be construed as an offence against the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition is to be allowed.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 objected the contentions raised by the petitioners by stating that a Criminal case was registered by the Central Crime Branch, Chennai in Crime No. 186 of 2011 for the offences under Section 420 and 406 I.P.C. The investigations are going on and at this point of time, the ground raised by the petitioners cannot be considered. No doubt, the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused in the F.I.R. However, the investigation officer will be in a position to form an opinion only after conducting a thorough investigation. The allegation is relatable to cheat of public and many persons have aggrieved, though the complaint is given by one person in the present case. The paper advertisement collected, reveals that money from public was being collected and swindled by some persons. Thus, a thorough investigation is required to cull out the truth behind the allegations. Under these circumstances, the mere contention of the petitioner that he is innocent of the allegations, cannot be considered by this Court and all such pleadings are to be considered only after completion of investigation by the competent authority. Thus, the writ petition is to be rejected.

7. The third respondent/ICICI Bank filed a counter affidavit. The third respondent also objected the contentions raised by the writ petitioner by stating that the third respondent/ Egmore Branch received a letter dated 08.04.2011 from the second respondent/Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Team-1, Chennai, informing the Bank that the criminal case is registered on their file in Crime No. 186 of 2011 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and that the Account No. 102805000271 standing in the name of the petitioner and also another account with a different number are involved in the said criminal case. Hence, for the purpose of fur