Allowed

Anand Arasu Gowda S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2021CRL.P/5898/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's application to defreezing two seized savings bank accounts, permitting the petitioner to operate them for daily expenses.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting the application to defreeze two savings bank accounts was set aside, and the petitioner was permitted to operate them.

Anand Arasu Gowda S Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5898 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Anand Arasu Gowda S., S/o Srinivas C., Aged about 26 years, No.13/B, I Main, 3^rd Cross, Manjunatha Layout, Thanisandra Main Road, Nagawara, Bengaluru-560077.

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri Vijaykumar Prakash, Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Karnataka By Amruthahalli Police, Now rep. by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Building, Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

…Respondent

¶14

(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated 02.12.2020 at annexure-A passed by the VII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.11114/2020 (Cr.No.217/2019) of Amruthahalli Police and direct the respondent police to De-Freeze the accounts of the petitioner, bearing Savings Bank A/c No.06862600000702 held with Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank) Thanisandra Branch, Bengaluru and Saving

¶16

¶17

Bank A/c No.099051100003076, held with Yes Bank, Yelahanka New Town Branch, Bengaluru.

¶18

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶21

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.11114/2020, rejecting the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., insofar as it relates to de-freezing of savings bank accounts of the petitioner, i.e., SB Account bearing No.06862600000702 at Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank) Thanisandra Branch, Bengaluru and another SB Account bearing No.099051100003076 at Yes Bank, Yelahanka New Town Branch, Bengaluru.

¶22

¶23

The petitioner is facing trial in connection

¶24

with offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 423, 424, 465, 471, 482, 483 and 109 read with Section 34 of IPC and the allegations are that, he opened fictitious bank account at Syndicate Bank, Yelahanka Branch and deposited the crime proceeds. He and other accused represented a company called Tirumala Constructions and Developers and collected cheques drawn in favour of the company from the customers, and instead of remitting the amount to the bank account of the Company, they presented the cheques for encashment at Syndicate Bank, Yelahanka Branch to be credited to the account opened by them in the name of the Company. During investigation, the investigating officer seized the personal bank accounts of the petitioner at Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank) at Thanisandra Branch, Bengaluru and Yes Bank at Yelahanka New Town Branch, Bengaluru. The petitioner sought to defreeze these two accounts and

¶25

¶26

the trial Court rejected the application insofar as it relates to defreezing the accounts.

¶27

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been operating these two accounts since before the registration of crime against him and the opening of alleged fictitious account at Syndicate Bank, Yelahanka Branch. He submits that on account of freezing of the bank accounts, the petitioner is not able to operate them and therefore has suffered a great deal of hardship as he is not able to draw money for his day to day expenditure. It is necessary that these two accounts must be defreezed to enable the petitioner to operate bank accounts.

¶28

Learned High Court Government Pleader says no objection for defreezing the SB account bearing No.099051100003076 at Yes Bank, Yelahanka New Town Branch. He also submits that an amount of Rs.6,36,000/- was seized by the investigating officer

¶29

¶30

lying in deposit in Account No.04232010076531 and therefore this bank account cannot be defreezed.

¶31

To this submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the account from where this sum of Rs.6,36,000/- was seized, stands in the name of the petitioner’s mother, Smt. Umadevi, i.e., accused No.3 and it is nothing to do with the defreezing of personal bank accounts of the petitioner.

¶32

The case of the prosecution appears to be that the petitioner and other accused opened a fictitious account in the name of Tirumala

¶33

Constructions and Developers for committing crime and deposited the cheques collected from the customers in that account. Even according to prosecution, the account opened at Sydicate Bank, Yelahanka is the fictitious account in the name of the company. The investigating officer might have seized two personal accounts during investigation, now that the

¶34

¶35

investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, there is no impediment for defreezing these two accounts. If the SB account bearing No.04232010076531 stands in the name of Smt. Umadevi, accused No.3, who is the mother of the petitioner, it is nothing to do with the petitioner’s personal bank accounts. In this view, learned Magistrate ought to have allowed the application in its entirety. Therefore the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Petition is allowed.

¶38

The order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C. No.11114/2020, rejecting the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., in relation to defreezing of the SB accounts of the petitioner bearing No.06862600000702 at Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank) Thanisandra Branch, Bengaluru and another SB Account bearing No.099051100003076 at Yes Bank,

¶39

¶40

Yelahanka New Town Branch, Bengaluru is hereby set-aside.

¶41

The petitioner is permitted to operate two bank accounts, namely, SB Account bearing No.06862600000702 at Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank) Thanisandra Branch, Bengaluru and another SB Account bearing No.099051100003076 at Yes Bank, Yelahanka New Town Branch, Bengaluru.

¶42

In the facts and circumstances, there is no need to impose any conditions for defreezing of accounts, however, the Magistrate is directed to direct the investigating officer to intimate to the concerned banks about this order and permit the petitioner to operate his bank accounts.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Kmv/-

Anand Arasu Gowda S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Arasu Gowda S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Srinivasa Vs Radha Ramakrishnan

M. Srinivasa Vs Mrs. Shobana G Subramaniam

Sri Manjunatha B K @ Manju Vs State by

Smt L M Sarvamangala Vs the State of Karnataka

Pramod Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

M Bhaskar @ Londe Bhaskar Vs the State by