Partly allowed

Mr Abdul Azeez v. the Station House Officer

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024WP/4220/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bank customer's savings account was debit frozen at the direction of Pune cyber crime police without following the procedure under Section 102 Cr.P.C. The court allowed the writ petition in part, directing the bank to defreeze the account while marking a lien on the disputed amount.

What did the court decide?

Account to be defrozen forthwith with lien on Rs.22,253/-; petitioner permitted to operate the account normally.

Mr Abdul Azeez Vs the Station House Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:10077 WP No. 4220 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 4220 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR.ABDUL AZEEZ S/O M.K.AHMED AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT RAMEEZ MANZIL POST KALLABETTU, KARINGE VILLAGE MOODABIDRE TALUK

¶9

DHAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 265.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI BALAKRISHNA M. R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER HADAPSAR POLICE STATION PUNE CITY

¶15

STATE OF MAHARASTRA – 411 028.

¶16

THE BRANCH MANAGER HDFC BANK LTD., CITY LITE COMPLEX IRAVALU MAIN ROAD MOODABIDRE, DK DIST. – 574 227.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:10077 WP No. 4220 of 2024

¶22

DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO DEFREEZE THE SB ACCOUNT BEARING NO.50100389302144 OF HDFC BANK, MOODABIDRE BRANCH, DK DIST.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:

¶26

“A. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to defreeze the SB Account bearing No.50100389302144 of HDFC Bank, Moodabidre Branch, DK Dist.,

¶27

B. Pass such other direction or order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶28

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Balakrishna.M.R., appearing for petitioner and the learned counsel Sri.Francis Xavier, appearing for the 2^nd respondent/Bank.

¶29

The petitioner holds a Savings Bank account in the 2^nd respondent/HDFC Bank. What has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition is, the debit freezement of the account of the petitioner. Debit freezement appears to have

¶30

been made pursuant to a direction issued by the 1^st respondent, Hadapsar Police Station of Pune city in the State of

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:10077 WP No. 4220 of 2024

¶33

Maharashtra. No other information is available with the 2^nd respondent/Bank or with the State with regard to such a direction being issued by the 1^st respondent.

¶34

The directive is mentioned in the communication dated 25.01.2024. It depicts that the Cyber Crime of Pune has directed debit freezement of the account of the petitioner. The directive is to debit freeze the account of the petitioner in terms of the communication by a police constable on 08.11.2023. The account held by the petitioner is akin to a property. It could not have been directed to be debit frozen without following the due procedure in law, the procedure as stipulated under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint is about an alleged cheating of an amount of Rs.22,253/- and a crime by a customer is registered before the jurisdictional police at Pune city. The direction to debit freeze the account of the petitioner is on the face of it, contrary to law as it does not indicate the rigor of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:10077 WP No. 4220 of 2024

¶38

The learned Additional Government Advocate would

¶39

also plead that no information is received from the department with regard to compliance of rigor of Section 102 (3) of the

¶40

Cr.P.C. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed albeit in part.

¶41

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

a. The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶44

b. Mandamus issues to respondent No.2 - bank to defreeze the account of the petitioner forthwith.

¶45

c. A lien on the amount of Rs.22,253/- be marked upon the account of the petitioner and the petitioner be permitted to operate the account as any normal account holder would operate.

¶46

Ordered accordingly.

¶47

BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 CT:SS

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

Mr Abdul Azeez v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Abdul Azeez v. the Station House Officer

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

Mr T Bhaskar Naidu Vs M/S Ashoknagar Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Zubida Vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

M/S Vibhuti Trading Vs Canara Bank

Mr. Annappa Nayak Vs State Bank of India

S. Nagaraju Vs the Executive Officer

Sri. Sarvesh G Vs Ashoknagar Co-Operative Bank Ltd.