Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 16748
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
AXIS BANK LTD. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7841 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M.
For the Respondents: SMT. SOWMYA R.
Court mandates that a financial institution be heard before a magistrate's order to defreeze accounts is executed.
Headnote:{ Statute Analysis: The court examined principles under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. Facts of the Case: The petition challenges a direction to defreeze accounts and transfer funds to the respondent.
Findings of Court:
The court noted multiple conflicting orders affecting execution.
Issues: The main question framed was whether the previous order directing the bank to release funds was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the jurisdictional magistrate must hear the petitioner before issuing defreezing orders.
Result: The petition is hereby allowed, and the previous order is set aside, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks relief regarding account defreezing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court mandates hearing for banking concerns. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petition allowed with order for reconsideration. (Para 5) |
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “To set-aside the Order, Dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Hon’ble 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Crime No.78/2024 i.e., ANNEXURE-'C' in terms of which, the Petitioners are direct to defreeze the Current accounts bearing A/c. No.923020024484749 & A/c No.923020014083644 maintained in the Petitioners Bank and transfer the same to the account of the Respondent No.2.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Axis Bank Ltd., Vs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. – Crl.P.No.1787/2023 dated 14.12.2023, and the present petition may be disposed of in the above terms.
4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue in controversy in the present petition is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Axis Bank Ltd. supra wherein it is held as under:
“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.
5. Till the application is disposed of, the petitioner/bank is restrained from releasing the money in favour of any person from the subject account.”
5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in the case of Axis Bank Ltd. supra.
6. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The petition is hereby allowed ii. The orde
