Point of Law: It is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry. In India as has been shown there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The Junctions of the judiciary and the police are complementary net overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491, Cr.PC to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however, the court's functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then

ORDER :

1. Heard learned senior counsel Sri Ranjit Kumar for learned counsel for petitioners Sri Sai Prasen Gundavarapu and learned Government Pleader for Home, and learned counsel Sri J.Sudheer for impleaded respondent No.3.

2. The writ petition is directed against the request placed by the Investigating Officer of Economic Offences Wing of the Crime Investigating Department of the State Government on HDFC bank to freeze the bank accounts opened and operated by the petitioners in connection with Crime No. 22 of 2016 registered under Sections 409, 420, 477 (A) of IPC and Section 37 of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 on 29.9.2016.

3. Facts to the extent necessary are noted hereunder:

(i) Petitioners 1 to 7 are claimed to be engaged in activities related to charitable purposes and provide employment to 2139 number of people. The 8th petitioner is a Trustee of petitioner Nos. 1 and 6, Director of petitioner Nos. 2, 4 and 7 and President of petitioner Nos. 3 and 5.

(ii) On a complaint lodged by Sri Gowripaga Albbert Lael, Crime No.22 of 2016 was registered in the Crime Investigation Department of the State of Telangana on 29.9.2016 under Sections 409, 420, 477 (A) of IPC and Section 37 of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010. The complainant, who worked as Chief Financial Officer for Operation Mobilization (OM) India Group of Charities, alleged that persons named in the complaint deceitfully indulged in mass embezzlement of public funds, maintaining forged accounts, falsification of accounts and causing huge loss to the beneficiaries from underprivileged communities, particularly dalits. Operation Mobilization India Group of Charities and 8th petitioner are shown as accused along with others. The Economic Offences wing of the Crime Investigation Department has taken up the investigation.

(iii) Registration of Crime No.22 of 2016 was assailed in W.P.No.40742 of 2016, primarily on the ground that on similar allegations earlier also complaint was filed by one Sri Ratnakar, registered as Crime No.350 of 2012. On through investigation, it was closed. Therefore, this complaint on the self same allegations is not maintainable. It was urged that filing another complaint is nothing but harassment and witch hunting by disgruntled ex-employees. Learned single Judge of this Court upheld registration of the complaint and dismissed the writ petition by judgment rendered on 30.7.2017. S.L.P.(Criminal) No.3888 of 2017 against this decision was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 12.9.2017. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed completion of investigation expeditiously.

(iv) On 21.11.2020, the Officer of Economic Offences Wing of the Crime Investigation Department investigating into the Crime No.22 of 2016 issued notice under Sections 91 and 160 of Cr.P.C., to the Branch Manager of the HDFC Bank, Pet Basheerabad Branch, Jeedimetla, Medchal-Malkajgiri district requesting him to furnish the statement of accounts, details of Fixed Deposits, Know Your Customer particulars of the account holders and also to freeze the accounts and fixed deposits mentioned in the notice.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL:

4. Submissions of learned senior counsel Sri. Ranjit Kumar for petitioners:

(i) Learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned notice was issued under Sections 91 and 160 of Cr.P.C., and in the said notice itself the investigating officer directs the Bank to freeze the bank accounts. According to the learned senior counsel, Section 91 Cr.P.C. deals with summons to produce document or other things, and Section 160 Cr.P.C., deals with Police Officer’s power to require attendance of the witnesses. But, these provisions are not applicable to freeze the bank accounts, whereas impugned notice does not refer to Section 102 Cr.P.C. Thus, the very invocation of power is vitiated. Petitioners have right to open bank accounts and operate bank accounts as per their convenience. While seeking to deprive this right, it is mandatory for the inve