Allowed

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank v. Assistant Commissioner of Police

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2024WP/6631/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bank challenged a police notice directing it to remit Rs.20,90,000 from a customer's loan account as a demand draft for the court. Finding the notice lacked legal authority, the Court quashed it and allowed the police to seek orders from the jurisdictional Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Impugned police notice dated 02.02.2019 quashed; liberty reserved to respondent No.1 to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for orders.

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank Vs Assistant… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:28445 WP No. 6631 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 6631 OF 2019 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMIN BANK DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT BRANCH HOTEL POOJA INTERNATIONAL COMPLEX P.B. ROAD DAVANAGERE-577 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER C. MAHABALESAWAPPA

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH FRAUD & MISAPPROPRIATION CELL CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION N.T. PET BANGALORE-560 053.

¶14

SRI. AMEER AHMED S/O LATE ABDULSAB #1887/30, ANUGRAHA NILAYA 1^ST CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR KUNDAWAD ROAD DAVANAGERE-577 004.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH .K, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER/DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE R-1 TO REMIT 20,90,000/- BY DD IN FAVOUR OF 1ST ACMM COURT, BANGALORE CYBER CRIME NO.4343/2018 BY DEBITING LOAN ACCOUNT OF RESPONDENT NO.2 ANNEXURE-A LETTER DATED 02.02.2019.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:28445 WP No. 6631 of 2019

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Notice to Respondent No.2 is Dispensed with at the Risk of the Petitioner.

¶23

This writ petition challenges the notice dated February 2, 2019, issued by respondent No.1, which calls upon the petitioner, a bank, to deposit a sum of Rs.20,90,000/- lying in the bank account of Respondent No.2 by way of a demand draft in the name of the I ACMM Court, Bengaluru. The respondent No.2 is an accused in Crime No.4343/2018.

¶24

The primary ground for challenging this notice is that respondent No.1 does not have the authority to issue such a notice. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by respondent No.1 is alleged to be beyond their legal powers.

¶25

The learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP), based on instructions, submits that the impugned notice was issued based on the voluntary statement of respondent No.2. The police, after conducting their investigation, have filed a charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶26

In the absence of any legal power vested in respondent No.1 to issue such a notice, the impugned notice lacks authority.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:28445 WP No. 6631 of 2019

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned notice dated February 2, 2019, issued by respondent No.1, as detailed in Annexure-A, is hereby quashed.

¶30

Liberty is reserved for respondent No.1 to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶31

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶32

NBM

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank v. Assistant Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank v. Assistant Commissioner of Police

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

Sri H Kumar Vs Sri Anil Kumar

Vasudev L Vs the Manager, M/S Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

Shivappa @ Shivakumar Vs Manjunath Jd @ Rajanna

Smt Raginiyamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K Udyashankara Vs the State of Karnataka

Udaya G P Vs the Chief Manager and Authorized Officer, Karnataka Bank Ltd.