THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12119 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to set aside the orders dated 07.08.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1422 of 2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short “trial Court”).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri B. Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that his account was freezed based on false allegations and that he filed a petition to de-freeze his account, which was dismissed by the trial Court. He therefore, prayed to allow the petition by setting aside the orders of the trial Court. He further submitted that the complaint is registered against only accused No.1. He submitted that without there being any allegation against him on 27.05.2025 he has received a message from Bank that his account is freezed, and on his enquiry, he came to know that at request of Police, the Bank has freezed his account. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused No.1 has transferred the amount into the account of the petitioner, which is utterly false. He further submitted that even in case if property needs to be attached, there is a procedure to be followed under Section 107 of the BNSS, but the prosecution has failed to follow the said procedure and has freezed his account, which is not proper.

4. Once the Police have ignored the procedure laid down under Section 107 of the BNSS, the order of freezing is bad in its inception and subsequently the said act of freezing his account cannot be validated. He therefore, prayed to defreeze his account.

5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that accused No.1 has transferred the illegal amounts into the account of accused No.2. Though permission was not obtained from the Magistrate to freeze the account, it does not vitiate the process, hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The petitioner herein is facing allegations under Sections 305, 318(2) of the BNS. The recitals of charge sheet point out that accused No.1 has transferred the fraudulently obtained amount of Rs.19,79,934/- from his account to the account of accused No.2 who is the petitioner herein. Thus, there is a prima-facie allegation against the petitioner.

8. The contention of the petitioner counsel is that the prosecution has ignored the procedure laid down under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (2023). It is pertinent to refer to the said section, hence the same is extracted here under:-

Section 107:- “grants police the authority to apply to a court or magistrate for the attachment, forfeiture, or restoration of property suspected to be the proceeds of a crime. A police officer must have a reasonable belief that the property results from criminal activity, obtain approval from a Superintendent or Commissioner of Police, and then approach the court for an order. The court can then issue a notice to the property owner, asking why the property shouldn't be attached as proceeds of crime.”

9. The sanction of Magistrate whether obtained or not is a triable issue, even if the sanction is not obtained, it amounts to a procedural irregularity, but it cannot be said to be abuse of process of law. The contention of the petitioner counsel is that the accused No.1 has taken loan from him and therefore, has repaid the same, and that it does not pertain to any illegal amount that is gained by the accused No.1 and is transferred to accused No.2. He further has placed the copies of Promissory Notes executed by accused No.1 in his favour to show that there were loan transactions between himself and accused No.1 and thus, he contends that the alleged transfer of money from the account of accused No.1 to accused No.2 pertains to the repayment of loan and hence, he is not concerned with the fraudulent transaction of