ORDER :

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :

“…. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.6 Bank to forthwith defreeze Bank accounts Nos.100036987936, 255577889922 and 201008979750 with M/s. Indusind Bank and further permit the petitioner to operate both bank accounts (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents concerned to compensate the petitioner with regard to financial losses occurred on account of illegally imposed hold in the bank accounts Nos.100036987936, 255577889922 and 201008979750 with M/s. Indusind Bank And Bank Accounts Nos.100036987936, 255577889922 and 201008979750 with M/s.Indusind Bank have been frozen pursuant to a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C issued by Investigating Officer/ Inspector, Cyber crime Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate is liable to be set aside and …”.

2. Mr. D. Raghavendar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Crime No.309 of 2022 was registered on 10.05.2022 under Section 120-B, 406, 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC, 35, 6-C, 66-D, 72, 74 of IT Act, 2008. He submits that the unofficial respondent is wife of the petitioner and she has approached the SHO, Cyberabad alleging that the petitioner is her husband and they are blessed with a child and that the petitioner and others have committed fraud, forgery, criminal breach of trust, cheating by impersonation against the company and the complainant and others. Basing on that, a complaint was registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that though they were separated on 16.10.2021, the unofficial respondent herein only with an intention to harass the petitioner has filed a complaint.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that initially, a notice was issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C. wherein, it was addressed to the Branch Manager of respondent No.6 and in that, they have sought for the information and also asked the bank to seize the bank account. He submits that under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the respondent officers have no authority to seize the account and basing on the said communication received from the respondent police, the bank authorities have seized the petitioner’s account on 18.08.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner has come to know about the same and they have also approached the respondent bank as well as respondent police. He submits that Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. stipulates that if the seizure is effected, the same has to be informed to the court forthwith, whereas, in this case, when the seizure was effected on 18.08.2022, the same was informed to the court on 15.09.2022. He submits that he has filed the writ petition on 14.09.2022 and after filing of the writ petition, the same was placed before the Magistrate on 15.09.2022.

4. According to the petitioner, as there is failure to comply with the provisions of 102 Cr.P.C., the entire proceedings are vitiated and as the bank accounts of the petitioner were freezed, lot of prejudice is caused to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order passed by the Gauhati High Court on 07.04.2022 in Crl.Rev.P.37 of 2022 in Pranab Kumar Ghosh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and he submits that in the similar set of facts, when the information was given to the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 102 Cr.P.C after the case is filed before the court, the court has observed that as per Section 102(3) Cr.P.C, the seizure has to be reported to the Magistrate forthwith and as per the material available in the said case that search and seizure was made on 22.06.2021 and the same was informed to the court on 17.08.2021 and the case was filed on 12.08.2021. As compliance of Seton 102(3) Cr.P.C. is mandatory, the same is not followed by the investigating officer and the learned judge has set aside the order 07.12.2021 with a direction to the investigating officer to defreeze the 15 bank accounts in ICICI