Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Adari Lavanya, vs The Union Of India, on 11 October, 2022

Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

                    Writ Petition No.31039 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of

respondents in freezing her SB account bearing No.212110100001103

maintained with the Bank of 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and for a

consequential direction to defreeze the SB account.

2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

The petitioner opened SB account bearing No.212110100001103

with Andhra Bank, H.B.Colony Branch, Old Venkojupalem Road,

Visakhapatnam / 3rd respondent on 26.03.2014. While so, the petitioner

and her husband Adari Ravi Kumar were arrayed as accused in

Cr.No.12/2017 of Muvvalavani Palem Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 354A, 420, 506, 328 r/w 34 IPC and Section

20(B)(i) of the NDPS Act. Her husband was involved in another case i.e.,

Cr.No.13/2017 of Muvvalavani Palem Police Station registered for the

offence under Section 420 IPC. During the course of investigation, on the

letter of Communication dated 18.01.2017 issued by the Investigating

Officer / 6th respondent to the Senior Branch Manager, Andhra Bank,

H.B.Colony / 5th respondent, the SB account of the petitioner was freezed.

Subsequently investigation was completed in both the crimes and charge

sheets have been laid and in Cr.No.12/2017 case was registered as

C.C.No.87/2018 in the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Visakhapatnam and in Cr.No.13/2017 case was registered as

C.C.No.386/2018 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and both the cases are pending. The petitioner

made representation dated 15.02.2019 to 5th respondent requesting to

defreeze her SB account in order to enable her to operate the same.

However, the 5th respondent issued a letter of Communication dated

16.02.2019 and rejected the request of the petitioner.

Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. The 6th respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition

contending as follows:

(a) Basing on the complaints from different people including

employees, un-employees, businessmen and others alleging that the

petitioner's husband styling himself as a Real Estate businessman and

also doing diamond business and also providing jobs to unemployed

youth, lured innocent people and collected lakhs of rupees from various

persons, the following crimes were registered in 6th respondent Police

Station.

(1) Cr.No.515/16, u/s. 354D, 506 IPC & 66 of IT Act, registered basing on the complaint of one N.Mallika, wherein the petitioner's husband is accused. The case is PT vide C.C.No.949/2018 on the file of Hon'ble 1st ACMM Court, Visakhapatnam.

(2) Cr.No.12/2017, u/s. 354(A), 420, 506 r/w 34 IPC, registered basing on the complaint of one P.Rama Devi, wherein the petitioner is Accused No.2. In this case, Charge Sheet was filed and the case is PT vide CC No.87 of 2018 on the file of III ADM Court, Visakhapatnam.

(3) Cr.No.13/17, u/s. 420 IPC, registered basing on the complaint of one D.Siva Teja, wherein the petitioner's husband herein is Accused. In this case, charge sheet was filed on 03.04.2017, and the case is pending trial vide C.C.No.391/17, on the file of the Hon'ble IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam.

(4) Cr.No.22/17, u/s. 420, 447, 323, 506 IPC, registered basing on the complaint of one T.Koteswara Rao, wherein the petitioner's husband herein is Accused. This case is pending trial vide CC No.393/17, on the file of the Hon'ble IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam. (5) Cr.No.24/2017, u/s. 420 IPC, registered basing on the complaint of one G.Venkatalaxmi Narasimha, wherein the petitioner's herein is Accused. This case is pending trial vide CC No.390/17, on the file of the Hon'ble IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam. (6) Cr.No.25/2017, u/s. 420 IPC, registered basing on the complaint of one K.Seetharaju, wherein the petitioner herein is Accused. This case is pending trial vide CC No.392/17, on the file of the Hon'ble IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam.

(7) Cr.No.29/2017, u/s. 420, 506 IPC, registered basing on the complaint of one K.Aditya Sarma, wherein the petitioner herein is Accused. The case is PT vide CC No.862/2017, on the file of Hon'ble III ADM Court, Visakhapatnam.

(b) Apart from the above crimes in 6th respondent Police Station,

some other crimes were also registered in different police stations in

Visakhapatnam City as follows:

(1) Cr.No.20/2017, u/s. 420, 342, 323, 506 IPC, of III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam City, registered basing on the complaint of one Madanmohan Reddy Pullareddy, wherein the petitioner's husband herein is accused. In this case, charge sheet was filed on 03.07.2017 and CC No. is awaited.

(2) Cr.No.37/17, u/s. 420, 506 IPC of III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam City, registered basing on the complaint of one K.Sravan Kumar, wherein the petitioner's husband herein is Accused. This case is pending trial vide CC No.402/17, on the file of the Hon'ble IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam.

(3) Cr.No.11/17, u/s. 506(ii), 354-A(ii), 323 of M.R.Peta P.S., Visakhapatnam City, wherein the petitioner's husband herein is accused, which is presently pending vide PRC No.6/17 on the file of the Hon'ble I Addl. registered basing on the complaint of one case registered at M.R.Peta P.S., and two cases are registered at III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam City against the petitioners herein.

Thus, the petitioner and her husband are involved in as many as ten cases

in various police stations in Visakhapatnam city.

Muvvalavani Palem Police Station. During the course of investigation, it

came to light that the petitioner and her husband collected huge amounts

from various victims luring them that jobs would be provided to them.

While so, the petitioner and her husband used SB bank account

No.212110100001103 of Andhra Bank, H.B.Colony, Visakhapatnam and

SB Account No.20145215388 of SBI, Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam for

disposing tainted amounts relatable to the crimes. The bank balance and

accounts of the petitioners were verified as part of the investigation by the

Investigating Officer and found the amounts deposited and available in

the above said accounts. Therefore, the Investigating Officer has

addressed letter dated 18.01.2017 to the Manager, Andhra Bank,

H.B.Colony, Visakhapatnam requesting to withhold the accounts and

thereby the accounts were freezed. The petitioner filed Criminal M.P

Nos. 1735 and 1736 of 2017 in Cr.Nos.13 & 12 of 2017 seeking direction

to release the bank accounts. However, those petitions were dismissed by

the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge to try the offences

under the NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed

Crl.P.Nos.4903 and 4904 of 2017 under Section 482 Cr.P.C before the

common High Court of A.P. to set aside the impugned orders in

Crl.M.P.Nos.1735 and 1736 of 2017. However, the petitioner withdrew

those criminal petitions and accordingly, those criminal petitions were

dismissed by the High Court on 28.06.2017. Thus, the petitioner and her

husband after exhausting all the remedies available under law, again filed

the present writ petition to defreeze the bank account which is not

maintainable. It is further contended that the account was freezed by

following due procedure envisaged under Section 102 Cr.P.C. The

respondents thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard arguments of Sri A.S.K.S. Bhargav, learned counsel for

petitioner, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing 1 st

respondent, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home

representing the respondents 2 & 6.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner while arguing that the freezing of the

SB account of the petitioner is illegal, submitted that since the

investigation in Cr.No.12/2017 was completed and charge sheet was also

filed and case was registered as C.C.No.87/2018, there can be objection

for the Investigating Agency to defreeze the account.

6. Per contra, while admitting that investigation is completed and

C.C.No.87/2018 is pending on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Court, Visakhapatnam, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home

would submit that during the stage of investigation the petitioner has

already filed Crl.MP.No.1735/2017 before the Metropolitan Sessions

Judge Court, Visakhapatnam for a direction to defreeze her SB account,

but the said petition was dismissed and subsequently she filed

Crl.P.No.4904/2017 before the common High Court of A.P. and for the

reasons best known to her the petitioner has withdrawn the said petition

and as such it is apposite for the petitioner to approach the trial Court to

seek relief. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Teesta Atul Setalvad v. The State of Gujarat1.

7. After hearing both sides, I find considerable force in the

submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. As

can be seen from the list of offences paraded in the counter, the petitioner

and her husband are involved in a number of criminal cases including the

present one. Therefore, a vivid enquiry is required to know whether the

amount transacted through the subject SB account has any connection

MANU/SC/1606/2017 = AIR 2018 SC 27

with the present offences and other crimes mentioned in the counter. It

appears, during the stage of investigation, petitioner has already filed a

similar application before the trial Court and the same was dismissed.

Therefore, the trial Court is the best Court to consider the renewed request

of the petitioner to defreeze her account having regard to the present

circumstances. Further, admittedly, investigation is completed and

CC.No87/2018 is pending on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Court, Visakhapatnam. In Teesta Atul Setalvad case (1 supra), in para

23 of the judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:

"23. xxxxxx Further, once the investigation is complete and police report is submitted to the concerned Court, it would be open to the Appellants to apply for de-freezing of the bank accounts and persuade the concerned Court that the said bank accounts are no more necessary for the purpose of investigation, as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 102 of the Code. It will be open to the concerned Court to consider that request in accordance with law after hearing the investigating agency, including to impose conditions as may be warranted in the fact situation of the case."

8. Therefore, going by the facts and law, it must be said that the

petitioner shall approach the trial Court for a suitable relief. It is

informed to this Court that the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.2857/2021 before

this High Court seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.87/2018 and

in I.A.No.2/2021 this Court passed an order dated 12.11.2021 granting

stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.87/2018 on the file of

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and Crl.P.No.2857/2021 is

said to be still pending. In that view, if she is so advised, the petitioner

may file an application in Crl.P.No.2857/2021 seeking lifting of stay to

the limited extent of permitting the trial Court to conduct enquiry in the

defreeze application to be filed by the petitioner before the trial Court and

to pass orders on merits.