Point of Law: Right to property is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India though not a fundamental right and the deprivation of the right can only be in accordance with the procedure established by law.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

1. The instant writ petition had been filed by the petitioner Amit Singh for defreezing the Bank account of the petitioner bearing Account No. 733910110001489 in Bank of India, Branch Panki, Kanpur Nagar and to allow the petitioner to operate his bank account. Subsequently by way of amendment the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 18.03.2021, contained in annexure no. 11 to the writ petition by means of which the account of the petitioner has been got freezed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. Station House Officer, Police Station-Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur Nagar in relation to Case Crime No. 1504 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur Nagar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the account of the petitioner has been seized in violation of the provisions made under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.). The mandatory requirements of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. has not been followed and the respondent no. 2 has not informed the concerned Magistrate regarding seizure of the bank account, forthwith. Therefore the Constitutional right of property envisaged under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India has been infringed. Thus the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the respondents be directed to defreeze the account of the petitioner and allow him to operate the account. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in N. Padmamma and Others vs. S. Ramkrishna Reddy and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3632 of 2008 decided on 16.05.2008; D.B. Basnett (D) through LRs. vs. The Collector East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and Another, Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2011 decided on 02.03.2020; Bajranga (Dead) by LRs. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Civil Appeal No. 6209 of 2010 decided on 19.01.2021; Ms Swaran Sabharwal vs. Commissioner of Police, 1990 (68) Comp Cas 652 Delhi (DB); Dr. Shashikant D. Karnik vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 Cri. L.J. 148 (DB); Muktaben M. Mashru vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another, Crl. M.C. No. 4206 of 2018, decided on 29.11.2019, Tmt. T. Subbulakshmi vs. The Commissioner of Police, Crl. O.P. No. 13103 of 2013 decided on 30.08.2013; Uma Maheshwari vs. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Channai, Criminal O.P. No. 15467 of 2013 decided on 20.12.2013; The Meridian Educational Society vs. State of Telangana, Writ Petition No. 21106 of 2021 decided on 04.10.2021; State of Haryana vs. Raghuveer Dayal, 1995 (1) SCC 133 and Chief Information Commissioner and Another vs. State of Manipur and Another, 2011 (15) SCC 1.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the account of the petitioner has rightly been got freezed in accordance with law by the respondent no. 2 as the consideration received out of the illegal transactions, in regard to which F.I.R. vide Case Crime No. 1504 of 2020 (Supra) has been lodged, has been deposited in the said account, hence the same is the case property and it cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner.

4. It was further contended by learned A.G.A. that on an application moved by the petitioner before the concerned Magistrate it has been informed that the Bank account has been seized. Therefore the requirement of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. stands fulfilled and if there was any delay, that may not give any benefit to the petitioner at this stage to get the account defreezed on this technical ground. However, the petitioner may move an application before the concerned Court for defreezing of his account which may be considered by the concerned court in accordance with law.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The First Information Report vide case Crime No. 1504 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 4