IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.17791 OF 2018 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
V VEERA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE Y VEERAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.304, SREESUNDER, KAMALANGRFLR, CO-OPHSG, SION, SO NO.3 B WING, 3RD FLOOR, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI - 400022.
(BY MR.SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADV.) AND:
1. ICICI BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, M.G. ROAD, BLOCK, NEAR MAYO HALL, NEAR JAYANAGAR GENERAL HOSPITAL, BANGALORE – 560001.
2. ICICI BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, OFFICE AT NO.1, COMMISSARIATE ROAD, GROUND FLOOR, BANGALORE – 560 025.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BANASHANKARI POLICE, BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION, … PETITIONER BANGALORE 560079.
(BY MR.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R-3 MR.FRANCIS XAVIER, ADV. FOR R-1 AND 2) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE R-1 AND 2 HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY MUCH LESS JURISDICTION TO ACT UPON THE PURPORTED DIRECTIONS OF THE R-3 POLICE AS AN ORDER TO FREEZE THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PETITIONERS MAINTAINED BY THE PETITIONERS IN THE BRANCH OF THE R-2 BANK AS MORE FULLY DETAILED IN THE COMMUNICATION DTD 19.04.2018 VIDE ANNX-A, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Sampat Anand Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr.Francis Xavier, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. The petitioners is aggrieved by the letter dated 31.03.2018, issued by the Police Department to the Bank Manager, ICICI Bank, wherein the Police Inspector has directed the Bank to freeze the account bearing No.029701503737, belonging to the petitioner.
4. According to the petitioner, he came in contact with one Mr. Sutram Suresh, who was a sports journalist. Mr. Suresh suggested to the petitioner No.1 that he should invest his money in a firm that he knew that deals with commodities exchange. Based on the assurances given by Mr. Suresh, the petitioner started investing his money with M/s. Vikram Investment Company, from whom he earned his returns. The petitioner claims that subsequently, since the investment was getting to be a large one, he pulled out his investment from the said Company. However, whatever he has earned as his returns from the said Company, he has declared the same and paid his taxes. He has also paid the commission earned by Mr. Suresh. Therefore, the petitioner was shocked and dismay to learn that his account with the ICICI Bank has been frozen. Initially, the Bank did not divulge any details, or give any reasons for freezing his account. Subsequently, petitioner was informed that due to an FIR registered as Crime No.73/2018, which relates to the Vikram Investments Company. Therefore, the petitioner sought a copy of the said Crime No.73/2018, which he received. Hence this petition before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no evidence, oral or documentary, which has been discovered by the Investigating Agency that will show any livelink between the petitioner, and the alleged offences committed by the Company. Therefore, the suspicion entertained by the Investigating Agency is in the realm of conjectures and surmises. According to the learned counsel, it is not even a prima facie suspicion, as there is no evidence to point a needle of suspicion towards the petitioner. Moreover, if the case of the Investigating Agency is that the petitioner have been paid Rs.19,00,000/- by the Company more than what they deserved, the petitioner is willing to give a bond for the said amount. But the Investigating Agency is not justified in freezing the entire account, as the account. Moreover, due to the freezing of the account, the petitioner is facing financial crisis as he cannot make any further financial investments, and cannot lead a normal life. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this court should direct that the account should be de-freezed by the Investigating Agency, and by the Bank, provided, the petitioner give a bond of the said amount of such amount as directed by this Court.
6. According to Mr.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA for respondent No.3, the petitioner have been paid by the Vikram Investment Company, more than what should have been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the Investigating Agency is of the prima facie opinion that the company has siphoned off and paid more amount to the petitioner than it should have, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant, Mr. Balaji, and wrongful gain to the petitioner. Hence, the Investigating Agency suspects, at this stage, that the petitioner may be involved in the illegal acts being committed by the company. It is on this basis that the Investigating Officer had directed the Bank to freeze the petitioners’ Savings Account.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. A bare perusal of the letter dated 31.03.2018 written by the Inspector of Police, Banashankari Police Station, clearly reveals that on 03.03.2018 a complaint was filed by Mr. P. R. Balaji, wherein he had claimed that the Vikram Investment Company had promised to share their profit with him, provided he invests his money with the Company. According to the complainant, initially they did share their profit with him. But from November 2017, they stopped sharing the profit. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.73/2018 was registered by the police. Subsequently, the police had arrested Mr. Raghavendra Srinath M., Mr. Narashimamurthy, Mr. Prahlada, Mr. Nagaraj K. S., and Mr. Sutram Suresh who are the alleged accused in the said case. But during the investigation of the said case, the police has directed the Bank to freeze the account belonging to the petitioner. Prima facie, there is no allegation made by Mr. Balaji against the present petitioner. In fact, Mr. Balaji does not even name the present petitioners in the complaint filed by him before the police. Therefore, taking the statement of the learned Additional Government Advocate that they may be distinct possibility that certain amount which is over paid to the petitioner may belong either to Mr. Balaji or to other investors, the entire case revolves around the payment of excess amount to the petitioner by the company.
10. This court is of the firm opinion that unless and until there is a strong suspicion against the petitioner, the police would not be justified in freezing the account belonging to the petitioner. For, such freezing of account adversely affects the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But, in order to balance the conflicting interest of the petitioner, with the interest of the Investigating Agency, and the interest of the complainant, in the interest of justice, respondents are directed to de-freeze the account belonging to the petitioner, provided, the petitioner No.1 submits a bond of Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs only) before the learned Sessions Judge, before whom the present case is pending.
With these observations, these petition stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS