Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 733
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
P. Naveen Rao, J.
Shumsunnisa – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 23636, 23688 and 23777 of 2020
Decided On : 24-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Kiran Palakurthi, Advocate
The main legal point established is the power of the police to freeze bank accounts under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. to protect suspected properties during the investigation.
Headnote:
Bank Accounts - Freezing of Bank Accounts - Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - [S. 102 Cr.P.C.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the freezing of their bank accounts by the police during the investigation of a complaint regarding the diversion of money belonging to a society into personal accounts.
Finding of the Court:
The Court upheld the power of the police to freeze the bank accounts under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. to protect suspected properties from destruction and to prevent hindrance to the investigation.
Issues: The main issue was the freezing of the bank accounts and the hardship caused to the petitioners, especially in the case of a pension account.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the bank account is considered as property under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. and can be seized if suspected to be involved in a crime. It also highlighted the duty of the investigating officer to preserve the seized property to prevent tampering with evidence.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies as available in law. The petitioner with a pension account was granted liberty to file an application before the jurisdictional Magistrate to defreeze or withdraw the pension amount from the account.
ORDER :
P. Naveen Rao, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
2. These three writ petitions are filed by Shumsunnisa, Athiya Nazneen and M.A. Bari, respectively. In these three writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the freezing of their bank accounts by the respondent-police.
3. On 06.06.2020, M.A. Khaleel lodged a complaint with the Devarakonda Police Station. According to the complainant, M.M. Quazafi is the President of Khader Memorial Educational Society and in the said capacity, he cheated the society by diverting large quantity of money belonging to the society to personal accounts opened in his name, in the name of his father, mother and sister. In the complaint, the complainant has listed eight bank accounts to which the amounts were transferred. Bank account mentioned at serial No. 6 belongs to mother, and the bank account mentioned at serial No. 8 belongs to sister of the President of the Society. Based on the said complaint, Crime No. 106 of 2020 was registered in Devarakonda Police Station and Police are investigating into the crime.
4. It is not in dispute that as the per the crime reported against the petitioner in W.P. No. 23777 of 2020 and his son, who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2, the money belonging to the society was diverted to the bank accounts, whose details are mentioned in the complaint, which include the accounts claimed by the petitioners in these three writ petitions.
5. Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, vests power in the Police Officer investigating into the crime to seize the 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".
6. Bank account is also a property and therefore the provisions of Section 102 Cr.P.C. are attracted to freeze the bank accounts in the process of investigating into the crime. Having regard to nature of crime reported in Crime No. 106 of 2020, Police suspect that these bank accounts are involved in the crime.
7. The scope of power of Police Officer to freeze the bank accounts and remedy available to aggrieved person was considered by this Court in W.P. Nos. 13363 and 10565 of 2020, dated 03.12.2020. This Court upheld the power of the police to freeze the bank accounts in the process of investigating into the crime and relegated the petitioners to avail remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. This Court held:
"17. To appreciate the respective submissions, it is necessary to understand the scope of Section 102 Cr.P.C. It reads as under:
"S. 102. Power of police officer to seize certain property.
(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 in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.
(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same."
18. It is beyond pale of doubt that the bank account is also the property and falls within the ambit of Section 102 of Cr.P.C. From the plain reading of this section, it is apparent that property can be seized by the Police Officer if it is alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of offence. It is part of investigation into the crime. The Investigating Officer can seize the property, which is suspected to have been involved in crime
