Madras High Court
Sunita Sunderdas Damani vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 January, 2021
1 Crl.OP No. 20449 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
CRL.O.P.No.20449 of 2020
Sunita Sunderdas Damani
D/o.Sunderdas Damani,
No.6/A, Shanaz Building,
No.90, Nepensea Road,
Malabar Hill, Police Station,
Mumbai. ..Petitioner
.Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Manager,
Phillip Capital (India) Pvt.Ltd.,
No.3, Asha Towers,
Longford Cross Road,
Bengaluru-560 025,
Karnataka, India. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 1st respondent
to de-freeze the DEMAT account bearing DP ID.IN302164 Client
ID: 10208317, maintained with the 2nd respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 Crl.OP No. 20449 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumarasamy
For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R 1
Mrs.P.Megana Nair
for R 2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to
de-freeze the DEMAT Account maintained by the petitioner with
the 2nd respondent.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a
limited liability partnership which facilitates transactions in unlisted
stocks for its clients and associates. The petitioner in the usual
course of business, purchased and sold to various clients 10,000
shares of HDB Financial Services at Rs. 630/- per share amounting
to total consideration of Rs. 63,00,000/-.
3.On 20.11.2020, the petitioner discovered that their
DEMAT Account bearing account bearing DP ID.IN302164 Client
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
ID: 10208317 held with the 2rd respondent was frozen without
prior notice or intimation. On enquires, it was brought to the
notice of the petitioner that based on a criminal complaint
registered by one Sai Akash in FIR No. 21/2020 dt. 21.10.2020
before the 1st respondent, the account was frozen. The further
case is that in the course of investigation, the 2nd respondent has
directed to freeze not only the DEMAT Account through which the
subject shares have been transacted, but also that of their
innocent clients leading to heavy financial losses and loss of
reputation.
4.The case of the petitioner is that though
representation was made to the 2nd respondent on 27.11.2020
with relevant documents, no action was taken on the same. The
petitioner also submitted that the 2nd respondent has failed to
follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 102 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 while freezing the DEMAT Account of
the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5.Heard Mr.B.Kumarasamy, learned counsel counsel for
the petitioner, Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent and Mrs.P.Megana Nair, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the respondent Police submitted that the DEMAT Account
was freezed on 02.11.2020 and the confirmation regarding the
freezing of the account was received from the 2nd respondent on
04.11.2020 and the same was informed to the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore on 30.11.2020.
7.In the present case, it is seen that there is an
agreement between the parties and they are governed by the
terms and conditions of the agreement. That apart, the
transaction is said to have been taken place during May 2020 and
the complaint was given only during October 2020. If the
respondent Police deemed it fit to freeze the DEMAT Accounts of
the petitioner in the course of investigation, appropriate orders
could have been obtained from the concerned Magistrate Court by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
submitting a report to the Magistrate. In the present case after
the account was freezed, there is a delay of more than 20 days.
When there was a considerable delay in lodging the complaint, it
could have been more appropriate for the respondent Police to
submit a report before the concerned Magistrate and after
obtaining orders, this process should have been undertaken.
Once, the respondent Police took a decision to freeze the account
without notice to the petitioner and without submitting a report to
the Magistrate, in that case, the report should have been sent to
the Magistrate immediately failing which the freezing of account
gets vitiated. This is the mandatory procedure that has been
provided under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Useful reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in
Padmini .v. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch,
Tirunelveli, and others reported in (2008) 3 CTC 657 and Smt.
T. Subbulakhsmi v. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore,
Chennai-08 and others reported in (2016) 2 Mad Weekly
Notes Crl 411.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8.In the present case, there is a considerable delay in
sending the report to the concerned Magistrate Court after the
DEMAT account was freezed by the respondent Police and hence
the freezing of account gets vitiated.
9.In view of the above discussion, there shall be a
direction to the respondent Police to immediately defreeze the
DEMAT Account maintained by the petitioner before the 2nd
respondent. If the respondent Police deems it fit to resort to
freezing of account during the course of investigation, it is left
open to the Police to follow the mandatory procedure under
Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and proceed further
in accordance with law.
10.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
27.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
KP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,
KP
CRL.O.P.No.20449 of 2020
27.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
