Karnataka High Court
Pagarpay India Private Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24659
WP No. 14861 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 14861 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
PAGARPAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
L-5, TRIFECTA ADATTO, 21, ITPL MAIN ROAD,
GARUDACHAR PALYA, MAHADEVAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 048,
BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. AAKASH MITTAL.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH B MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
YAMUNA K L BY POLICE OF RAMAMUTHINAGAR
Location: High POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 016,
Court of
Karnataka REPRESENTE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE.
2. EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK,
NO.309/3, K.V.V SQUARE,
GROUND FLOOR, KASTURI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 053,
REPRESENTE BY THE BANK MANAGER.
3. POLICE INSPECTOR,
STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO),
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24659
WP No. 14861 of 2024
TEELAMOD P.S., GHAZIABAD,
UTTAR PRADESH - 201 005.
4. MR. ROHIT RAMAN,
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR,
OXY HOMEZ, A809, LONI,
TRANS HINDON-COMMISSIONERATE,
GHAZIABAD TEELAMOD,
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH - 201 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 06/05/2024 OF FREEZING OF THE CURRENT
BANK ACCOUNT BEARING NO.200002140387 OF THE
PETITIONER WITH THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BANK (ANNEXURE-
D) UPON THE REQUISITIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1
AND 3
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner is seeking for the following
reliefs:
1. Quash the order dated
06/05/2024 of freezing of the current
bank account bearing no. 200002140387
of the petitioner with the respondent no.
2 bank (Annexure-D) upon the
requisitions of the respondent nos. 1 and
3.
2. Pass any such order or direction
as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
NC: 2024:KHC:24659
facts and circumstances, to meet the
ends of justice."
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and learned Counsel for
respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in
the petition and referring to the material on record, learned
Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the interim
order passed by this Court vide Annexure-D in
WP.No.10312/2024, dated 05.04.2024 in order to point out
that on account of blanket order passed by the Police
Authorities, amounts are lying in the accounts of the petitioner
at various places including the subject matter of the present
petition, which have been directed to be frozen by respondent
No.3 pursuant to which respondent No.2-Bank has frozen the
account of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner
has no objection for lien to be marked in relation to the
disputed amount of Rs.9,999/- and the necessary directions
may be issued to respondent No.2-Bank to defreeze the
account by marking such a lien, in terms of the judgments of
this Court in the case of RAZORPAY Vs. STATE OF
NC: 2024:KHC:24659
KARNATAKA in WP.No.62/2022 and NAGARAJU Vs. STATE
OF KARNATAKA in WP.No.27214/2023.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.2-Bank
and learned AGA submits that this Court may proceed to pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
5. Before adverting to the rival submission, it is
necessary to extract the interim order passed dated 05.04.2024
in WP.No.10312/2024 filed by the petitioner, which reads as
under:
"The petitioner is before this Court
calling in question the order dated
14.3.2024 which directs freezing of the
account of the petitioner.
Though for direction to freeze, it is
not necessary that an account or the
account holder should be in the eye of
crime. The case at hand depicts certain
strange circumstance.
The complainant appears to have
lost Rs.7,500/- in transacting through the
petitioner and a complaint is registered
with an "Online Portal" at Ahmedabad.
The office of the DGP at Ahmedabad
directs the Nodal Officer of all Banks in
the Country to freeze the accounts
wherever the transactions of the kind
have taken place. The axe falls on the
petitioner even. There is no semblance of
compliance with law in such a direction,
as it is sweeping to all the accounts
where transactions of the complainant
NC: 2024:KHC:24659
has taken place. Therefore, there shall
be an interim of stay as prayed for.
Issue notice.
Learned AGA shall seek instruction
with regard to specific communication of
freezing of the account of the petitioner,
if any."
5. So also, in the light of the judgements of this Court in
the case of RAZORPAY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA in
WP.No.62/2022 and NAGARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
in WP.No.27214/2023, since the disputed amount is only
Rs.40,000/-, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this
petition directing respondent No.2-Bank to defreeze the
account of the petitioner by marking a lien to an extent of only
Rs.9,999/- in the account of the petitioner, which is disputed
amount and permit the petitioner to operate the said account
immediately upon receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Subject to the aforesaid direction, writ petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
