IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. Jayachandran, J.
Mohammed Saifullah - Petitioner
Versus
Reserve Bank of India, Rep. by its Governor and ors. - Respondents
W.P.No.25631 of 2024
Decided On : 10-09-2024
Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points with their corresponding references:
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unilateral freezing of accounts raises issues. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. insufficient communication on account freezing. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. guidelines for account freezing must be followed. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. freezing orders must not violate fundamental rights. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. writ petition disposed with ordered de-freezing. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
G. Jayachandran, J.
The issue by many of the citizens currently face is the freezing of the account on instruction from the local Police or from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. Many a times, the account holders have been taken into surprise that by such order of freezing, before they could realize as to why and for what purpose the accounts are freezed, enough damages are caused to their day to day financial life, since the very life- line of the business gets severed by such unilateral orders of account freezing passed by the Police.
2. No doubt, the statutes empower the investigation agency to request the Bank to freeze the account pending investigation and intimate it forthwith to the jurisdiction Court, but whether the power is properly exercised or not is the moot question now looming large and in the several judgments of the Courts across the India, it had been categorically held that there cannot be freezing of account perpectually without intimating the account holders what for their account is freezed and what extent it has to be freezed. Even then, day in and day out, this Court receives applications to defreeze the account pointing out the failure of the investigating agency not only to the account holders, even to the jurisdictional Court not intimating about the freezing of the account as per Section 102 of Cr.P.C. equivalent to 106 of BNSS Act.
3. This is a case where the petitioner who is suspected to be dealing with cryptocurrency, the case is under investigation by the Cyber Crime Bureau of Cyberabad, Telangana, registered on 16.05.2023. The fifth respondent Bank has been instructed to freeze the account of the petitioner herein. The communication received by the Bank indicates that around Rs.2,48,835/- is the suspected money involved in the subject matter of the crime under investigation. Meticulously, in reference to the instructions received from National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and the notice from the Telugana Cyber Crime Bureau, the fifth respondent has freezed the account.
4. In the said account of the petitioner a sum of Rs.9,69,580/- stands as balance. Even after lapse of more than a year neither the Investigating Agency nor the Bank had informed the petitioner as to why the account is freezed and how long the account will be kept under freeze. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for Mandamus to release the entire amount in his account by ordering de-freezing of the account.
5. When similar issues came up for consideration in Crl. OP No.10569 of 2021 vide order dated 18.06.2021, the learned Judge of his Court, directed the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Greater Chennai, to give necessary instructions and directions to his personnel in conducting investigation in cases were freezing of account is required and ensure that there is no colourable exercise of power. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, vide Circular Memorandum dated 24.06.2021, has issued a directional instructions to all the Deputy Commissioners of Police in District and CCB, CWC to ensure that there is no deviation of the instructions. It is appropriate to reproduce the circular.
6. Unfortunately, in most of the cases the guidelines issued in this Circular not observed. Later when an identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in WP No.13509 of 2024 considering the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.T.Enrica Lexie and another –vs- Doramma and others reported in MANU/SC/0409/2012, Teesta Atul Setalvad and others –vs- The State of Gujarat and others , reported in (2018) 2 SCC 372 and Shento Varghese
AI
Freezing of bank accounts must follow due process, ensuring transparency and protection of individuals' financial rights, especially during investigations.
Freezing bank accounts entirely without quantifying disputed amounts violates fundamental rights; only disputed amounts should remain on hold.
Freezing an entire bank account without evidence linking the account holder to a crime violates the right to livelihood; only specific amounts should be frozen with proper justification.
Un-freezing of account - Notice quashed - Unless and until there is a strong suspicion against the petitioners, police would not be justified in freezing account belonging to petitioners. For, such f....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.