IMPORTANT POINT
The legal remedy open to the aggrieved is to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 451 or 457 of the CrPC as the case may be, and seek to get the account de-freezed. But if the freezing is per se contrary to the provisions of law and could be assailed as illegal without reference to factual disputes involved in the matter, nothing precludes the affected person from approaching this Court for appropriate relief.

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 of a farmer, who is one of the beneficiaries of poultry farming scheme introduced by the Bank in the year 2015-16. The bank introduced the farming scheme by which the beneficiaries were provided with chicken, cages and feed free of cost on condition that the farmers ought to supply in return, the eggs to the Bank, for which the farmers were to get the maintenance charges.

3. The de facto complainant claims to have supplied the eggs as undertaken, for a period of one year and the entries evidencing receipt of eggs from him were recorded by the Bank in the passbook maintained in his name. According to him, an amount of Rs.3,37,654/-due towards the maintenance charges for the year were not yet paid to him.

4. His instant grievance is that a notice was issued by the Co-operative bank calling upon him to clear the loan arrears of Rs.2,37,146/- allegedly due to it as if he had already received the loan and kept the amount in arrears without discharging his liability. He denied having received any loan from the bank or executed documents evidencing any request for loan or receipt of any such amount. It is further stated that similar notices have been issued to majority of the beneficiaries of the scheme and all are equally aggrieved and the act of the bank authorities has amounted to forgery and cheating punishable under law.

5. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the amounts kept in his accounts have no connection whatsoever with the loans advanced by the Marayamuttam Service Co-operative Bank to the farmers and therefore, the act of second respondent freezing the accounts in exercise of power under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the CrPC') is quite illegal.

6. Another contention is that the de facto complainant subsequently withdrew from his complaint and none of the beneficiaries of the scheme has also any grievance against the Bank and therefore itself, the entire accusation against the petitioner and co-accused is baseless.

7. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Investigating Officer de-freezed the Cash Credit Account No.37310035507 by Ext.P11 letter addressed to the petitioner on discovering that the amounts kept in that account had nothing to do with the crime but were only related to his contract work. What, therefore, survives for the present is whether the freezing of savings bank account is illegal and liable to be removed.

8. The third respondent Branch Manager did not file any counter.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor took strong exception to the request made for de-freezing of the SBI account and submitted a detailed statement of facts indicating the various steps taken by the Police as well as the stage of present investigation. It is stated that the investigation revealed that the members of