Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Shankar Singh Manral – Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3322 of 2023 (M/S)
Decided on : 28-12-2023
Bank Accounts - Freezing of Accounts - Section 91 Cr.P.C., Section 102 Cr.P.C., Section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act - The court held that the direction issued by the Investigating Officer under Section 91 Cr.P.C., to freeze the bank accounts of the petitioner is not sustainable. The Banks are not bound to comply with such direction as regards freezing of saving bank accounts of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cancer patient, sought relief from the court to quash the order freezing his bank accounts, citing that the freezing was done without due process of law and deprived him of accessing his own money needed for medical treatment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts based on the notice issued by the Investigating Officer under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was not sustainable. The Banks were directed to de-freeze the saving bank accounts of the petitioner within 24 hours.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of freezing the petitioner's bank accounts without due process of law and compliance with the provisions of Section 91 Cr.P.C., Section 102 Cr.P.C., and Section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Investigating Officer's direction under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to freeze the bank accounts was not sustainable, and the Banks were not bound to comply with such direction. It emphasized the importance of compliance with the legal provisions before freezing a bank account.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondent banks were directed to de-freeze the saving bank accounts of the petitioner within 24 hours from the date of receipt of the court's order.
ORDER :
1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs:-
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent no. 3 and 4 to immediately defreeze the petitioner’s Punjab National Banck (PNB) savings bank account beaing no. 778300100000758, maintained at Branch Kaniya P.O. Ramnagar District Nainital and the State Bank of India savings bank account bearing no.20068813271, maintained at Ramnagar District Nainital, respectively and may further permit the petitioner to operate his aforesaid bank accounts.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the impugned order/communication dated 02.08.2023, issued by respondent no. 2 pursuant to which petitioner’s Punjab National Bank account bearing no. 7783000200000758, maintained at Branch Kaniya P.O. Ramnagar District Nainital as well as saving bank account bearing no. 20068813271 of State Bank of India Branch at Ramnagar District Nainital have been freezed without following due process of law. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a cancer patient has thus been deprived to withdraw his own money from the account which he is required for his medical treatment.
3. The petitioner is the registered deed writer, duly registered by the District Registrar, Nainital in terms of U.P. Deed Writer License Rules 1977. The said license was issued in the year 1990 and was renewed time to time up to the year 2019, since, he was suffering from a chronic cancer disease, therefore, he surrendered his license in the year 2019, and enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttarakhand as an Advocate.
4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was implicated in FIR No. 438 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC as well as in FIR No. 506 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 120B IPC and in two more FIRs, i.e., 507 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and FIR No. 508 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Consequently, based on the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner was also implicated in FIR No. 0262 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Gangsters Act for brevity). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are in relation to the sale deeds executed in the year 2010 to 2012, and after more than 8 to 10 years, delayed FIR were lodged.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after lodging of the FIR No. 0262 of 2023 on 23.06.2023, which pertains to the offence punishable under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, a communication was sent by respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 3 & 4-Banks mentioning therein that in view of the ongoing investigation in FIR No. 0262 of 2023, the amount as credited in the saving account of the petitioner is suspicious, and, consequently by the communication dated 02.08.2023, under Section 91 Cr.P.C., request to the Bank-authorities to freeze the saving bank accounts of the petitioner and pursuant to said notice the saving bank accounts of the petitioner were freezed on 03.08.2023. Being aggrieved with the seizure of the saving bank account of the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition.
6. On the previous date Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the Bank submitted
Compliance with legal provisions, such as Section 91 Cr.P.C., Section 102 Cr.P.C., and Section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act, is essential before freezing a bank account.
The Investigating Officer lacks authority under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to freeze a bank account absent compliance with Section 102, violating procedural requirements and the petitioner's rights.
Power of Investigating Officer to freeze Saving Bank Account of any person - Banks is not bound to comply with such direction as regards freezing of Saving Bank Accounts of petitioner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the freezing of a bank account under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be lawful if it is in compliance with the directions of th....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the freezing of a bank account under Section 102 of Cr.P.C requires the fulfillment of pre-conditions, including a reasonable suspicion of ....
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....
The court established that timely notification to the jurisdictional magistrate regarding account seizures is essential to uphold the rights of account holders under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established is the requirement for investigating officers to follow prescribed procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure or obtain orders from the District Magistrate under....
An investigating agency cannot debit freeze a bank account without a Magistrate's order, as per Section 106 of the Banking Regulation Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
