SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Telangana) 510

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J.
Anand Property Finance Limited – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 17080 of 2022
Decided on : 27-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy on behalf of Sri Vishal Porandla

When an effective alternative remedy is available to redress the grievance, the court should not entertain a writ petition.

Headnote:

Section 102(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) gives power to police authorities to freeze/seize property if suspicion arises. Section 102(3) of the Cr.P.C requires the police officer to report the seizure to the Magistrate. Section 451 of the Cr.P.C provides for the procedure for interim custody of property. The court referred to these sections in analyzing the legality of the freezing of the bank account.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a non-banking financial company, had its bank account frozen by the respondent without any prior notice. The respondent claimed that the freezing was done in connection with a crime and that the necessary procedures were followed. The petitioner sought the defreezing of the account and filed a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court examined the maintainability of the writ petition and held that the petitioner should avail the alternative remedy available under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). The court stated that the freezing of the account was done in accordance with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C and that prior notice was not required. The court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable and directed the petitioner to avail the appropriate alternative remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when an effective alternative remedy is available to redress the grievance, the court should not entertain a writ petition. In this case, the petitioner should have filed an application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C instead of a writ petition.

Result: The writ petition was disposed of, directing the petitioner to avail the appropriate alternative remedy under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in directing the 4th respondent, without any information to the petitioner, to freeze the petitioner’s bank account bearing No. 400280674777 with RBI, Andheri Marol Branch, IFSC Code RATN0000192 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vishal Porandla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a non-banking financial company registered under the Companies Act with an aim to provide financial services. It performs the functions of delivering credit to the underprivileged, underserved segments of the society through small loans for serving their various needs. It is submitted that the petitioner is a lending facility designed to empower various poor and underprivileged people and operates through its fintech partners who own and operate platforms through which the loans are procured by the underprivileged sections of the society. It is submitted that on 05.03.2022, while trying to make transaction from its RBL Bank Account No. 400280674777 with Andheri Marol Branch, all of a sudden, the transaction was declined. It is submitted that on enquiry with the 4th respondent bank, the petitioner was orally informed that upon instructions of the 3rd respondent to freeze the bank account, the same was frozen on 15.03.2022 and the account continues to be frozen even as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the respondent bank has not given any further information and it is also informed to the 3rd respondent that their actions are causing severe business loss and damage to the petitioner. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent simply stated that FIR No. 325 of 2022 was registered on the basis of the complaint given by one R. Jhansirani and they are conducting investigation and the procedure will go on and he cut the call abruptly. He submits that the case of the complainant is that due to some family emergency, she needed a loan and she searched on Google Play Store where she saw the cash pocket App and she has submitted all her details along with her Aadhar card, pan card and selfie photo and that she has taken a loan of Rs.5,500/- and within five days, she had paid Rs.10,000/- and in the same way, she had taken multiple loans from few Apps. She also alleges that in time, she is unable to pay and the petitioner has suggested her to take a loan from other Apps for which they sent links. A total amount of Rs. 75,000/- has been transferred to her account from 35 Apps. She stated that she has repaid Rs.1,73,046/- and the petitioner company is blackmailing to pay the amount again and sending morphed photos, videos, Aadhar card, pan card copies to all her contact lists. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that all these allegations are made with an intention to cause disrepute to the petitioner’s company and nothing has been established by the complainant. It is submitted that the de facto complainant is not a customer to the petitioner company and the company is no way connected with the said crime. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the bank has adopted a very arbitrary approach while freezing the accounts of the petitioner company without bothering to scrutinize the entries and nature of transactions. He submits that before exercising the power under Section 102 Cr.P.C., the police officer has to assess the need to freeze the bank account and after formation of an opinion, supported by reasons he can freeze. According to him, in the instant case, no reasons are stated and with an ulterior motive, he has bypassed the law and seized the accounts of the petitioner company. He submits that the action of the 3rd respondent in not informing the magistrate forthwith is also in gross violation of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. and the entire action of the 3rd respondent is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that before freezing the

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top