Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Ker) 568

Madhu. K. – Appellant
Versus
Sub Inspector Of Police – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. B.S. Swathi Kumar, Smt.Anitha Ravindran, Sri. Harisankar N Unni, Smt.P.S.Bhagya, Surabhi, Advs.
For the Respondent: Sri. Udayakumar K.B., Sr. Public Prosecutor, Sri. R.S.Kalkura, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The remedy to approach the Magistrate under Section 451 or 457 CrPC to de-freeze, or approach the Court if freezing is per se illegal (!) (!) - Breach of 102(2) and 102(3) CrPC in freezing bank accounts may be irregular rather than illegal; such irregularities do not automatically invalidate the seizure but are subject to departmental action or judicial scrutiny (!) (!) (!) - If accounts are de-frozen when linked to non-offence transactions, courts may direct Magistrate to decide on de-freezing, considering nexus to offences; reporting and compliance with 165(5) procedures are discussed, with irregularities acknowledged but not always fatal to seizure (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the remedy available to an aggrieved person for freezing of bank accounts under Section 102 CrPC?

What are the conditions and consequences of breaching Sections 102(2) and 102(3) CrPC in freezing bank accounts?

What is the court's stance on irregular vs illegal freezing of bank accounts and the appropriate judicial response including de-freezing orders?

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is the 9th accused in Crime No.926/2019 of Marayamuttam Police Station registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). During the course of the investigation of the crime, the third respondent, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Perumkadavila branch, suspended the operation of petitioner's Savings Bank account No.67031821151 and Cash Credit account No.37310035507 on 18.02.2020 acting upon Ext.P9 request addressed to him by the second respondent, Sub Inspector of Police. Being aggrieved by the freezing of accounts, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that Ext.P9 requisition as well as the consequential freezing is illegal and liable to be quashed. A direction commanding the third respondent to de-freeze the accounts was also sought in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner is a contractor by profession and a member of the Director Board of Marayamuttam Service Co-operative Bank (hereinafter, 'the Co-operative Bank'). The co-accused in Crime No.926/2019 are either the members of the Board or the employees of the Bank. The Crime was registered on the motion

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(Ker) 568

Madhu. K. – AppellantVersusSub Inspector Of Police – Respondent

What is the remedy available to an aggrieved person for freezing of bank accounts under Section 102 CrPC?

What are the conditions and consequences of breaching Sections 102(2) and 102(3) CrPC in freezing bank accounts?

What is the court's stance on irregular vs illegal freezing of bank accounts and the appropriate judicial response including de-freezing orders?

Madhu. K. – Appellant
Versus
Sub Inspector Of Police – Respondent