The trial court must provide an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard before issuing orders to defreeze accounts, ensuring compliance with judicial procedures.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner in this case is again Axis Bank.

2. Heard Sri Unnikrishnan M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor along with Sri.Jagadeesh B.N., for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in all identical cases coordinate benches have allowed the petitions and remitted the matter back to the office of the learned Magistrate to permit the petitioner to file his objections with liberty to appear and then consider applications filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973.

4. I deem it appropriate to quote the orders so passed in Crl.P.No.1787/2023 dated 14.12.2023:

"ORDER

The Petitioner which is a Financial Institution is before this Court challenging the order passed by 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on an application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. by the complainant/respondent No.2 directing the petitioner-Bank to defreeze the amount belonging to the accused and transfer the said amount to the bank account of the complainants/respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner’s concern is that the order passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate cannot be executed because it surpasses the specified release amount, and numerous courts across the Country have issued directives to the investigating agencies to unfreeze the bank accounts of the accused therein.

3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on instructions would suggest that the matter may be remanded to the Jurisdictional Courts to consider the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. afresh, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. Admittedly, multiple cases are registered against the accused herein within the State and across the country and there are multiple orders passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrates directing the petitioner to unfreeze the account of the accused and transfer the amount to the bank account of the complainants. The passing of multiple orders has caused difficulty to the petitioner/bank in executing the said order, since the amount ordered to be released in some accounts exceeds the amount available in the subject accounts of the accused. Therefore, the learned Magistrate before passing an order directing the petitioner to unfreeze and transfer the amount to the accounts of the complainants, is required to hear the petitioner. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal Petition is allowed

ii. The order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Cr.No.452/2021 is hereby set aside.

iii. Matter is remanded to 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to reconsider the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. afresh, after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

iv. Till the application is disposed of, the petitioner/bank is restrained from releasing the money in favour of any person from the subject account."

In Crl.P.No.13487/2023 c/w. Crl.P.Nos. 10201/2023, 12091/2023, 13483/2023, 13489/2023, 13611/2023, 13627/2023, 13940/2023, 13955/2023, 98/2024, 128/2024, 356/2024, 357/2024 dated 12.02.2024:

"7. Having heard the arguments of both side, perused the records. The Trial Courts have passed the impugned orders in these cases for de-freezing the accounts of the customers and releasing the amounts, without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Bank. If the orders of the Magistrate are not complied with, it amounts to violation of court order and they face contempt. Therefore, before de- freezing the accounts, it is necessary for the Trial Court to give opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in the matter and then pass appropriate orders since some of the customers do not have any amounts in their accounts and some of the customers are having lesser amount or zero balance. Hence, it is necessary for this Court to set aside the impugned orders with liberty to the petit