Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, while de-freezing the seized Bank accounts of an accused held that u/s 102 CrPC there has to be a nexus between the property that has to be seized with the offence in order to empower the Investigating Officer to seize them.
Brief Facts:
This petition has been filed against the dismissal of the petitioner’s application which was filed before the Magistrate, for release/de-freezing her Saving Bank Accounts which was done in accordance with the order dt. 21.02.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli.
An FIR u/s 420 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner, Anita Aggarwal as per the complaint filed by Vartika Mehta. As per the complaint, the petitioner had persuaded the complainant to invest with Adarsh Cooperative Society by depositing an amount. The petitioner had assured that she was an authorized agent for Kasauli for the society, but on the date of the maturity of the invested amount the petitioner started avoiding the complainant, and thereafter, the complainant came to know that she had also cheated many persons in a similar manner and had not refunded any amount. Later on, the petitioner was contacted for repayment of the amount and she started misbehaving and abusing.
On the basis of the Complaint, an FIR was registered and an investigation was carried on. During the investigation, on the basis of the communication sent by the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO, the accounts of the petitioner were ordered to be seized. The petitioner had approached the Trial Court for the release/de-freezing of the account numbers but the application was rejected on the ground that the investigation was pending.
Observations of the court:
This Hon’ble Court noted that u/s 102, CrPC a nexus has to be established between the property and the offence, for it to be seized by the Police Officers. In the current case, it was noted that as per the Investigating agency, the petitioner received money from the Complainant and deposited the same with the Cooperative Society. According to the status report as submitted, nowhere has it been revealed or even alleged that the bank accounts of the petitioner contain the property received from the complainant. It has also not been shown that this account was used for transactions at the time of the commission of the offence.
It was concluded that in the present case, necessary ingredients under section 102 CrPC and therefore the Investigating Officer cannot be empowered to seize the Bank Accounts of the petitioner, and seizing of the same is not suitable. Further, the court also noted that the investigation was still going on, but now more than sufficient time has passed even after Covid-19.
Judgment of the Court:
The Court did not find the ingredients of Section 102 CrPC to be existing in the current case and there was no nexus established between the said account with the offence. Hence, the petitioner was found to be entitled to the de-freezing of her accounts and to operate them, but it was subject to the furnishing of a personal bond for the amount deposited in the bank.
Case Title: Anita Aggarwal v. State of HP
Coram: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur
Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 200 of 2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Chauhan and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Advocates
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Hemant Vaid, Additional Advocate General
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
