Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 8880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sunder Mohan, J
SHANTHI – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.2394 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Thenrajan
For the Respondents: R. Vinothraja
Bank accounts frozen during investigation under Section 106 of BNSS (or Section 102 CrPC) may be de-frozen if the amount contained therein is negligible and the freezing serves no practical purpose for the prosecution.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS challenging the dismissal of an application to de-freeze bank accounts. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, while working as an Assistant Accountant, conspired to misappropriate company funds to the tune of Rs.1,73,02,268/- under Sections 408, 420, 477(A), 109 and 120(B) of the IPC. The court noted that six accounts belonging to the petitioner and her children were frozen during the investigation. The primary issue was whether the freezing of accounts under Section 102 Cr.P.C./Section 106 of BNSS was justified. The court observed that the total amount lying to the credit of the frozen accounts was only Rs.50,000/-, reasoning that the freezing of such a small amount would be of no avail to the prosecution in the context of the alleged misappropriation. With the above observation, the revision is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against the dismissal of an application to de-freeze bank accounts frozen during a misappropriation investigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the jurisdiction to freeze accounts under section 102 crpc/106 bnss and the actual amount involved. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. de-freezing of accounts ordered when the frozen amount is negligible and provides no utility to the prosecution. (Para 6 , 7) |
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS to call for the records relating to the order dated 23.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.12140 of 2025 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, For Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai), and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai – 08 and set aside the same.
O R D E R
The petitioner challenges the dismissal of her application to de-freeze her account and the accounts of her relatives including her children, which were frozen during the course of investigation in Crime No.213 of 2024.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Accountant in the office of the de facto complainant; that she was entrusted with the administrative work such as maintaining of one time password; E-mails, Salary, GST filing and other payments; that taking advantage of the information, she had conspired with other accused and misappropriated company’s funds since 2022 to the tune of Rs.1,73,02,268/- and thus committed the offences under Sections 408, 420, 477(A), 109 and 120(B) IPC.
3. During the course of investigation, six accounts belonging to the petitioner and that of her children were frozen by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner sought for de-freezing of the accounts before the learned Magistrate by filing Crl.M.P.No.12140 of 2025 which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent Police have no jurisdiction to freeze the bank accounts since the amount lying in the Bank is neither stolen property nor does it create a suspicion of commission of any offence and therefore, Section 102 Cr.P.C./Section 106 of BNSS ought not to have been invoked.
5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), per contra, would submit that the petitioner had transferred the misappropriated funds into six accounts, which were frozen and therefore, Section 102 Cr.P.C/106 of BNSS was rightly invoked by the Investigating Officer and there is no infirmity in the action taken by the Investigating Officer. However, he would fairly concede that the total amount lying to the credit of the frozen accounts is only Rs.50,000/-.
6. Considering the fact that the amount lying to the credit of the accounts frozen is only Rs.50,000/-, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Court is of the view that the accounts cane be directed to be de-frozen as the freezing of accounts would be of no avail to the prosecution. Hence, the bank accounts of the petitioner and her children, detailed in the revision petition, which have been frozen are directed to be de-frozen with liberty to the respondent to attach any property of the petitioner under Section 107 of BNSS provided the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied.
7. With the above observation, the revision is allowed.
