Allowed

Mrs. Bhajantri Henrica v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024WP/5955/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenging a notice freezing her bank account issued during investigation of a cybercrime case. The court held the account freeze without informing the jurisdictional Magistrate violated Section 102(2) Cr.P.C., quashed the notice, and directed that the account be unfrozen.

What did the court decide?

Notice dated 21.10.2022 quashed; respondent No.3 directed to unfreeze petitioner's account forthwith; liberty to respondent No.1 to follow Section 102 Cr.P.C. procedure.

Mrs. Bhajantri Henrica Vs the State of Karnataka — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:30540 WP No. 5955 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 5955 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. BHAJANTRI HENRICA D/O. SRI. BHAJANTRI VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT C/O. MR. L. ALBELU, KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK, AT POST: BHATAGUNAKI, TALUK: INDI DISTRICT, VIJAYPUR-586209, ALSO RESIDING AT NO. MB-1A, SHARADA NAGAR, GODAVARIKHANI, RAMAGUNDAM, KARIMNAGAR, MAREDUOAKA, TELANGANA-505 209.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ABHIJEET S.K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CEN POLICE STATION, WEST DIVISION, BASAVESHWARNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079 REPRESENTED BY SHO/POLICE INSPECTOR.

¶14

SRI. KAUSHIK PAWAR. S S/O. SRI. SURYA PRAKASH C. N., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.11/2, 5^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018.

¶15

STATE BANK OF INDIA DWARKANAGAR BR,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:30540 WP No. 5955 of 2024

¶17

DIAMOND PARK BRANCH, VISHAKAPATNAM (VIZAG), ANDHRA PRADESH-530 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, (3^RD RESPONDENT IS A FORMAL PARTY AND NO RELIEF IS SOUGHT AS AGAINST THEM).

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK,HCGP FOR R1; SMT. P. CHITHRA NIRMALA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN CRIME NO. 460/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE 1ST ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION AND QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 21/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner challenges the issuance of a notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by which respondent No. 3 was directed to freeze the petitioner's account. The impugned notice was issued by the 1st respondent-Bank during the course of an investigation in Crime No. 460/2022 for an offense punishable under Section 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:30540 WP No. 5955 of 2024

¶28

Admittedly, the 1st respondent-Bank has not informed the Jurisdictional Magistrate regarding the account freeze, as required by the provisions which are held to be mandatory. Therefore, the impugned notice issued to freeze the petitioner's account is in contravention of Subsection 2 of Section 102 of Cr.P.C.

¶29

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

¶30

The impugned notice dated 21.10.2022, issued by the 1st respondent at Annexure-A, is hereby quashed.

¶31

Liberty is reserved for respondent No. 1 to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 102 of Cr.P.C.

¶32

The 3rd respondent is hereby directed to unfreeze the petitioner's account forthwith and permit the petitioner to operate the bank account.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶35

Mrs. Bhajantri Henrica v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Bhajantri Henrica v. the 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

Mr. Nayaz Pasha, Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Durga Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Government Emarketplace

Sri. Mahanthesh J Vs State of Karnataka

Naveed Ahmeed Vs Range Forest Officer and Surveyor

M/S Himagiri Sree Electricals Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Mahesh P B Vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.