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 the Investigating Officer investigating the FIR, and failure to challenge those directions may lead to dismissal of a petition.

JUDGMENT :

The challenge in this petition is made to the communication dated 24.08.2023, made by the respondent-State Bank of India (“SBI”), by which a representation given by the petitioner for defreezing his bank account, has been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-Bank had once freezed the account of the petitioner. That order was challenged in WPMS No.2356 of 2023, Resizone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India (“the first petition”). The first petition was decided on 21.08.2023, with the following directions:-

“Exclusively on that ground since the order is having a civil consequences and the same has been apparently passed without any opportunity of hearing being provided to the petitioner, the writ petition would stand allowed. The impugned order would stand quashed with a direction to the respondent/bank, that the respondent would hear the petitioner on his representation to be filed by him and pass afresh order within three days.

But, however, for a period of three days only, the petitioner would not operate the Account No. 32948210005 standing in the branch of the State Bank of India, I.T. Park, Dehradun. It goes without saying that if the decision is not taken within three days, it would be open for the petitioner to operate the account in accordance with law.

Subject to above exception, writ petition is allowed.”

4. Subsequent to it, according to the petitioner, he made a representation to the respondent-Bank on 21.08.2023, but, it has been rejected on 24.08.2023, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as was required to be given pursuant to the order dated 21.08.2023, passed by this Court in the first petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent-Bank has no business to freeze the account of the petitioner; earlier, when the account was not allowed to be operated by the respondent-Bank, the petitioner had filed the first petition; the first petition was allowed with the directions to the respondent-Bank to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the representation that may be filed by the petitioner; the petitioner did file a representation, but he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. It is also argued that along with the impugned order, a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C./102 Cr.P.C. has been enclosed revealing that in FIR No.702 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC (“the FIR”), Police Station Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad, directions were issued to the respondent-Bank. It is argued that directions were with regard to providing account details, not for freezing the account. Even otherwise, it is argued that under Section 91 Cr.P.C., such action cannot be done. It is also argued that, in fact, in the FIR, which is referred to, the petitioner is not named. He is not connected with the offences.

6. This Court offered learned counsel for the petitioner to explain as to what he has to say in support of his representation that was filed by the petitioner before the respondent-Bank. This is so because, it has been argued that pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in the first petition, on 21.08.2023, the petitioner has never been afforded an opportunity of hearing.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would raise the following points in his submission:-

(i) under Banking Laws, the account cannot be freezed.

(ii) In the FIR, in which allegedly such action was taken, petitioner or his family members are not named. They have no connection with the activities, as narrated in the FIR.

(iii) The impugned communication is in violation to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogy (1999) 7 SCC 685, according to which the bank account of only accused or his relatives may be freezed.

(iv) Procedure under Section 102 Cr.P.C. has not been followed.

8. The impugned order makes reference to