The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope and application of Section 102 Cr.P.C. in the context of seizing property during a criminal investigation and the authority of the concerned magistrate to grant interim custody of seized property.

ORDER :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. Petitioner alleges that the unofficial respondent No. 4 filed a private complaint before IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, with false averments, stating that her husband has taken Rs. 71,00,000/- from him and from his friends for the purpose of establishing hospital and cheated him. Based on a reference by the learned Magistrate, complaint was registered in Nallakunta Police Station as Crime No. 96 of 2019. Thereafter, husband of the petitioner was arrested. In the course of investigation, police have also seized the Car of the petitioner bearing registration No. TS 10EK 9848 and gold ornaments. The police have also addressed letters to the ICICI Bank at UCON Plaza, near Navrang Theatre, Park Road, Kurnool, where the petitioner maintained bank accounts, mortgaged her gold ornaments and taken loan for an amount of Rs. 13,41,000/-. Having come to know that her Car and gold loan account were seized by the respondent - police, this writ petition is filed praying to declare the action of the respondent - police in seizing the Car of the petitioner and gold loan account, as illegal and arbitrary, and seeks consequential direction to respondent No. 3 to forthwith release the Car of the petitioner and defreeze the bank accounts.

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is nothing to do with the crime reported against the husband of the petitioner. He further submits that the Car as well as gold loan accounts belongs to her and therefore merely because husband of the petitioner is shown as accused in a crime is no ground to seize the Car of the petitioner and to freeze her bank account.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home produced copy of the charge sheet filed on 29.08.2020 before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. From this charge sheet, it is seen that the petitioner herein is shown as accused No. 2. From the contents of the charge sheet, it is also seen that as per the confessional statement of accused No. 1 i.e., the husband of the petitioner, accused habitually commits the offences of cheating indulges in breach of trust and he along with several other associates involved in two other crimes. It is further alleged that accused No. 1 collected a sum of Rs. 71,70,000/- from LW. 1 who contributed the same towards funding the Multi-speciality Hospital to be run by accused No. 2, but said sum was diverted for doing micro finance business. It is further alleged that the petitioner and her husband utilised the illegal money to buy gold ornaments, then deposited the gold to obtain loans from IIFL, Kurnool, and Mannappuram Kadapa. It is further alleged that accused No. 1 has obtained loan by mortgaging the gold on 07.03.2019 for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The charge sheet further alleged that accused No. 2 is also involved in crimes; she was running micro finance business from out of the amount illegally obtained by her husband; she is having three gold loan accounts in ICICI bank and all loans were taken in March, 2019. It is further alleged the Motor Car bearing registration No. TS 10EK 9848 was purchased from out of the money obtained from LW. 1.

5. Thus, from the reading of the charge sheet, prima facie, it discloses that purchasing of Car and operating of the concerned gold loan accounts are traceable to the crime of cheating and breach of trust allegedly reported by the complainant. Bank account is also a property and therefore the provisions of Section 102 Cr.P.C. are attracted to freeze bank accounts in the process of investigation into the crime.

6. In W.P. Nos. 13363 and 10565 of 2020, dated 03.12.2020, the very issue was considered and this Court held as under:

"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. Pow