Magistrates must provide a hearing to the account holder before passing orders under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C to defreeze and transfer funds from that account to a complainant, as failing to do so infringes upon the individual's right to property.

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2025 PASSED BY THE XLV ACJM, AT BENGALURU IN CR.NO.397/2025 OF NORTH EAST CEN P.S., AND TO DEFREEZE THE BANK ACCOUNTS BEARING A/C NO.074801506875, IFSC CODE-ICICI0000748 IN ICICI BANK AND A/C NO.23901000004604, IFSC CODE-HDFC00002390 IN HDFC BANK AND REFUND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RS.4,01,400/- WHICH WAS DEBITED FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PETITIONER.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

"WHEREFORE the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 24.10.2025, passed by the XLV Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Bengaluru, in Crime No. 397/2025 of North East CEN Police Station and to to defreeze the bank accounts bearing A/c No. 074801506875; IFSC Code: ICICI0000748 in ICICI Bank and A/c No. 50100810738954, IFSC Code: HDFC0008674 in HDFC Bank and refund the entire amount of Rs.4,01,400/- (Rupees Four Lakhs One Thousand Four Hundred only) which was debited from the accounts of the petitioner, in the interest of justice, equity and law.

Heard Sri. Kumara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. B. Pushpalatha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would project that without hearing the petitioner the amount from the account of the petitioner is defrozen and transferred to the hands of the complainant.

This Court in way back in year 2022 had clearly directed that the concerned Court should not pass orders without hearing the person from whom the amount is to be transferred on answering an application under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. The courts are repeating the same mistake. Therefore, this Court in the case of Rahul Chari and Another v. State of Karnataka BY NORTH CEN POLICE AND OTHERS¹2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1967 has held as follows:

"12. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and therefore not reiterated. The 2nd petitioner is a Unified Payment Interface platform. All such UPI platforms are not owned by them. They are owned by the National Payments Corporation of India (‘NPCI’ for short) and legally the petitioners are considered as third party application provider by the NPCI or a system provider. In effect, regardless of different nomenclatures under different enactments, the UPI service providing entities like the 2nd petitioner/PhonePe have the status of intermediaries as obtaining under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’ for short). Section 79 of the IT Act protects the intermediaries to the extent as obtaining under the provision. Section 79 of the IT Act reads as follows:

“79. Exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases.–(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if–

(a) the function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or hosted; or

(b) the intermediary does not–

(i) initiate the transmission,

(ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and

(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission;

(c) the intermediary observes due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if–

(a) the intermediary has conspired or abetted or