Seizure of assets under S.102 CrPC requires compliance with statutory provisions and cannot be based solely on suspicion.

1. Final hearing of this matter has been conducted through video conferencing.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.7.2020 (Annexure P1) freezing two bank accounts of the petitioner by respondent No.5 as well as against the impugned order dated 11.8.2020 (Annexure P2) rejecting his application under S.457 of the CrPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba finding no merit.

3. The aforesaid challenge has been made on following factual backdrop:
(i) On the complaint of the intervener, the Station House Officer, Police Outpost CSEB, Police Station City Kotwali, Korba, registered Crime No.653/2020 against Mohan Singh, Director of the petitioner Company for offence punishable under S.406, S.409 and S.420 of the IPC. Thereafter, by order dated 30.7.2020 (Annexure P1) respondent No.5 directed State Bank of India, TP Nagar and ICICI Bank, TP Nagar to give information about the petitioners bank accounts and also directed to freeze the said accounts which the respective banks have feezed immediately on the receipt of information from respondent No.5. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application under S.457 of the CrPC for defreezing his bank accounts stating inter - alia that such a freezing is contrary to the provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (3) of S.102 of the CrPC, as the dispute is purely civil or commercial dispute and there is no criminality involved and the amount deposited in the bank accounts of the petitioner is neither the amount which is suspected to have been stolen or it is not creating suspicion of the commission of offence and further that seizure of bank accounts was not informed forthwith to the concerned Magistrate as seizure was made on 30.7.2020, whereas it is said to have been informed to the concerned Magistrate on 8.8.2020, therefore, the order freezing bank accounts deserves to be set aside.
(ii) By the impugned order, learned Magistrate rejected the petitioner's application holding that investigation is in progress and the Director of the petitioner firm is absconding, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.

4. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner questioning the order dated 30.7.2020 (Annexure P1) freezing its bank accounts as well as the order dated 11.8.2020 (Annexure P2) rejecting its application freezing bank accounts passed by the learned Magistrate principally on the ground that there is complete violation of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of S.102 of the CrPC though the bank account is the property within the meaning of S.102 (1) of the CrPC, but it is not the amount suspected to have been stolen or it can be held that the amount deposited has direct link with commission of offence for which the police officer is investigating into and further that the concerned Magistrate was not informed forthwith as mandated under sub-section (3) of S.102 of the CrPC.

5. Return has been filed by the respondents / State opposing the averments made in the writ petition and it has been informed that since offence under S.406, S.409 and S.420 of the IPC has been registered against the petitioner at the instance of the intervener and investigation is in progress and considering the nature of dispute between the parties, the bank accounts have been freezed and the learned Magistrate was informed about the seizure of bank accounts of the petitioner on 8.8.2020, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Intervener / complainant has also filed intervention application stating inter - alia that bank accounts of