Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.: - Through the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”), the petitioners pray for issuance of directions to respondent No. 4 to defreeze/de-seal bank accounts of the petitioners which have been freezed on a request made by respondent No. 2 (Investigating Officer).

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that Manmeet Singh, son of the petitioners, was married to Harleen Kaur, respondent No. 3- complainant on 25.4.2011. After the marriage, husband of the complainant went to U.K. and the complainant got a job with Infosys, who later joined her husband in U.K. in January 2012. Due to some petty disputes between the complainant and her husband at U.K., she came back to India in the month of July 2012 and got registered FIR No. 19 dated 4.2.2013 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station, Rupnagar against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sisterin- law. The petitioners, parents-in-law of the complainant were arrested and granted regular bail after their custody for about a month. It is further submitted that when the petitioners were in custody, the Investigating Officer moved an application to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Hari Nagar, DFS Janakpuri, New Delhi for stopping operation of Bank Account No. 1527000100076987 of petitioner No. 1, Account No. 1527000190489970 of petitioner No. 2 and Locker No. AK-00950 in the name of petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 4 freezed the said bank accounts of the petitioners without providing an opportunity of hearing. It is argued with vehemence that the Investigating Officer exceeded his power and jurisdiction to move an application for freezing the bank accounts of the petitioners as he neither sought any permission of the trial Court for moving such an application nor his action of getting the accounts freezed been approved by the learned trial Court. It is argued that the freezing of accounts of the petitioners by respondent No. 4 on the application of the Investigating Officer is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be set aside.

3. Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the contrary, submits that the complainant levelled allegations of demand of dowry, misappropriation of dowry articles and her salary. She also alleged that an amount of Rs. 5 Lacs was given in cash by her father to the petitioners from time to time. It is further submitted that amount of Rs. 5 Lacs is yet to be recovered from the petitioners and the accounts of the petitioners have been got freezed as it is apprehended that the amount of Rs. 5 Lacs is deposited in the said accounts.

4. Per contra, counsel for respondent No. 3 has supported the freezing of accounts as an amount of Rs. 5 Lacs is yet to be recovered from the accused. It is argued that Manmeet Singh Kakar, the main accused is absconding and is yet to be arrested. It is urged that in case, the accounts of the petitioners are allowed to be operated, they will leave the country and would not be available during trial.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

6. The sole question for consideration is ‘whether the Investigating Officer has power to get the bank accounts of the accused freezed?’

7. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their reply has not referred to any provision of law which authorizes an Investigating Officer to get the bank accounts of the accused freezed. However, Section 102 of the Code provides for power of police officer to seal certain property. A relevant extract from Section 102 of the Code is quoted hereinbelow:-

“(1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.

(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer-incharge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.

(3)Every police officer acting under sub-secti