Smt. Kunti Devi Vs Deepu C G

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IST ACMM AT BENGALURU IN CR.NO.393/2022 OF BENGALURU SOUTH CEN CRIME POLICE.

¶26

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is seeking to set aside the order dated 06.07.2022 passed by the learned First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in Cr.No.393/2022 of Bengaluru South East CEN police station, which was confirmed in Cr.R.P.No.360/2022 on the file of the learned LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-53), vide order dated 21.07.2022.

¶29

Heard Sri. Chetan Nag S., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Radhika K., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:1702 CRL.P No. 7162 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned

¶34

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶35

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition?"

¶36

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

¶37

REASONS

¶38

Respondent No.1 has filed the First Information with

¶39

the South East CEN Crime police station, DCP South East Division, Bengaluru on 09.06.2022 alleging that she was subjected to a matrimonial fraud, as she was made to transfer more than Rs.40 lakhs in favour of a person who projected himself as widower, who is going through tough times and is in need of money to complete his project. On the basis of the first information, FIR in Cr.No.393/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC came to be registered. It appears respondent No.2 has freezed the account No.921010016603144 with Axis Bank, with an amount of Rs.21,68,500/- in credit.

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:1702 CRL.P No. 7162 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Respondent No.1 being the informant filed the application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.PC seeking to defreeze the said account and to transfer the amount of the Rs.21,68,500/- in her favour. The Trial Court passed an order allowing the application directing to defreeze three accounts including the account referred to above belonging to the petitioner and transfer the said amount to the account of respondent No.1 held with HDFC Bank. Respondent No.1 was directed to execute the Indemnity Bond against any third party claim. The petitioner has challenged the said order before the Revisional Court by preferring Crl.R.P.No.360/2022. The said revision came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2022. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶44

It is noticed that respondent No.1 has not given any details of transfer of more than Rs.40 lakhs as claimed. She has also not given details of the accounts for which she has transferred the amount. However, during investigation, respondent No.2 appears to have freezed the account belonging to petitioner and two others. The materials on record discloses that an amount of Rs.21,68,500/- was in the credit of

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:1702 CRL.P No. 7162 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

account No.921010016603144 with Axis Bank, which is said to be the account held by the petitioner.

¶49

According to learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶50

there was some other dealings by respondent No.1 with the son of the petitioner, who is a bitcoin dealer and therefore, respondent No.1 has not given the details of so called fraud committed against him.

¶51

However, the fact remains that no investigation was undertaken by the Investigating Officer after passing the order impugned dated 06.07.2022, which was confirmed in the criminal revision petition. The defence taken by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court by holding the mini-trial. It is for Investigating Officer to investigate into the matter. However, in the meantime, freezing of the account belonging to the petitioner with Axis Bank shall be in force to prevent the petitioner from withdrawing the amount. But in the meantime, the order impugned dated 06.07.2022 passed by the Trial Court directing to transfer the said amount to the account of respondent No.1, which was confirmed in the criminal revision petition No.360/2022 is liable to be set aside.

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:1702 CRL.P No. 7162 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

In view of the above, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) The Criminal petition is allowed .

¶58

(ii) The order dated 06.07.2022 passed in

¶59

Cr.No.393/2022 of Bangalore South East CEN crime police station, passed by the learned First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and the order dated 21.07.2022 passed in Crl.R.P.360/2022 on the file of the learned LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, are hereby set aside.

¶60

(iii) Freezing of account No.921010016603144

¶61

with Axis Bank said to be belonging to the petitioner shall remain in force. However, petitioner is at liberty to seek de-freezing of the account on a reasonable ground, on which, the Trial Court is at liberty to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶62

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶63

BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Smt. Kunti Devi v. Deepu C G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kunti Devi v. Deepu C G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K N Shantha Kumar Vs Sri Mallikarjunjappa

Shri H L Ramesh Vs Karnataka Lokayukta

Preetham Vs the State of Karnataka

G T Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sri Lakshmi Properties, Vs Additional Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sri. Shankara Gaud Vs M/S. Peregrine Phosphate (P) Ltd.