The judgment emphasizes the importance of complying with the procedural requirements, specifically under Section 102(3) of the Cr.P.C., when freezing a bank account in connection with a criminal investigation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to defreeze petitioner-s company-s bank account which is maintained by the fourth respondent by considering her representation dated 11.08.2021 preferred to the second respondent an accordance with law with the time stipulated by this Court.)

The petition has been filed for a direction to the second respondent to defreeze the petitioner-s company-s bank account which is maintained by the fourth respondent by considering her representation dated 11.08.2021 preferred to the second respondent.

2. The petitioner neither accused nor witness to the crime registered in FIR.Nos.149 and 151 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. Both the FIR-s were registered on the allegation that the accused persons started a wholesale company in the name of Karthika Agencies by creating fake office address to borrow loans from the reputed banks. Their office is situated at No.112 Chikkanadhar Street, Karthikeyan Nagar , Maduravoil, Chennai. They approached Karur Vysya Bank, Harrington Road Branch for applying the loan and availed loan to the tune of Rs.2 crores. Therefore, the bank sought for necessary documents for which the accused arranged all the documents which were sought by the bank for availing loan. After perusing all the documents submitted by the accused, the said Karur Vysya Bank sanctioned loan to the tune of Rs.1,05,00,000/-. In such a manner, the accused persons approached the South Indian Bank, Vadapalani Branch in the month of October 2018 and sought for loan by way of filing application and also submitted necessary documents. The said bank also sanctioned a sum of Rs.2,60,00,000/- in favour of the accused persons. Thereafter, the accused persons failed to repay the said loan amount and committed default. Those banks started recovery process and when they scrutinized the document, they found that the documents produced by the accused persons are fabricated one and all the documents were filed only with malafide intention. Therefore, on the complaint lodged by the Bank officials, the second respondent registered a case in crime Nos.149 and 151 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. In pursuant to the registration of FIR, the second respondent had taken steps to freeze the bank account of the accused persons. However, the petitioner-s account which is lying with the fourth respondent herein also has been frozen in pursuant to the investigation in crime Nos.149 of 2020 and 151 of 2020.

3. Mr.Mohammed Riyaz, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is no way connected with the accused persons in respect of availing loan. The petitioner is neither applicant nor guarantor for the loan availed by the accused persons. The petitioner started agricultural food export business in the name and style of -Karthika Agencies Export House- along with her partner one, G.Ethirajulu. They have opened the account with the fourth respondent herein in the name and style of Karthika Agencies Export House in A/c.No.189705001491, Koyambedu Branch, Chennai. It is a duly registered firm. Therefore, the accused persons are no way connected with the petitioner and there is no relation between their company and the accused company. However, the second respondent wrongly instructed the fourth respondent to freeze the petitioner-s account along with the fraudulent company-s account which stands in the name of Karthika Agencies Export House.

4. He further submitted that the second respondent after freezing the account failed to follow the procedure laid under Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C. The second respondent requested the banker i.e. the fourth respondent to freeze the account by the communication dated 18.02.2021. It was not communicated to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrat