Lakhvir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2205 P&H

CRM-M No. 30791 of 2021 (O&M)                                              -1-

           In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                                            CRM-M No. 30791 of 2021 (O&M)
                                            Date of Decision: 29.3.2022

Lakhvir Singh                                                     ......Petitioner


                                          Versus


State of Punjab and others                                       ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

Present:      Mr. A.S.Sidhu, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

                          ****


SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

CRM-10825-2022

1. The present application has been filed for preponing the date of

hearing of main case.

2. For the reasons recorded in the application, the application is

allowed. The main case is preponed, and, is taken up on board for hearing

today.

CRM-M-30791-2021

1. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 24 of 10.3.2020,

registered at Police Station Sadar Rajpura, thereins offences constituted

under Sections 279, 323, 506, 427, 365, 406, 325 IPC, are embodied.

2. After completion of investigations into the FIR (supra), the

investigating officer concerned, instituted a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

before the learned Magistrate concerned. Thereafter the relevant charges

1 of 3

became framed against the accused.

3. The grievance ventilated before this Court, by the petitioner-

accused, is that, the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Rajpura, on the prosecutor's application, cast under Section 91 Cr.P.C., is

completely infirm, as the relevant provisions for freezing the accounts, of the

petitioner-accused, are embodied in Section 102 Cr.P.C., than in Section 91

Cr.P.C.

4. While making the afore made submission, the learned counsel for

the petitioner, depends upon a verdict recorded by Uttarakhand High Court, in

case titled as Mohd. Rizwan Ansari versus State of Uttarakhand and others,

and, which bears Writ Petition (M/S) No. 699 of 2021. However, the afore

made verdict carries a factual matrix completely distinct to the factual scenario,

existing in the instant case. The apt inter se distinctivity, lies in the fact, that in

the case (supra), the investigating officer concerned, suo moto proceeded to

recourse the mandate embodied in Section 91 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, in the

instant case, the impugned order, hence making a direction upon the bank

concerned, to freeze the accounts of the petitioner-accused, is rather made by

the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned. Therefore, the reliance placed upon

the afore judgment, is a grossly misplaced reliance, and, the verdict (supra) is

not amenable for being applied qua the petitioner.

5. Be that as it may, even though in paragraph 6 of the verdict

(supra), the Uttarakhand High Court has made an inference, that apart from the

police officer being forbidden to recourse the mandate of Section 91 Cr.P.C.,

hence for freezing the accounts of the accused-petitioner rather the Court

concerned being also disempowered to make recourses thereto. However, the

afore made inference cannot be accepted by this Court, as even if, in the

prosecutor's application, there were incorrect mentioning(s) of the relevant

2 of 3

statutory provisions, inasmuch as its mentioning Section 91 Cr.P.C., than

Section 102 of Cr.P.C. yet, the afore mis-mentioning, moreso, when all the

concerned were heard, upon the application concerned, and, also when no

objection became raised by the accused-petitioner herein, with respect to the

afore factum, and, whereafter the apposite order became passed, rather become

subsumed within the realms of waiver(s), and, abandonments thereof.

Consequently when otherwise too, the relevant empowerment, is available in

the Cr.P.C., inasmuch as in Section 102 Cr.P.C. thereof, thereupon, the effect,

if any, of the relevant mis-mentioning in the apposite application, does not at

all either effect or erode the jurisdictional empowerment of the learned Judicial

Magistrate concerned. Moreover, the order is deemed to be made under

Section 102 Cr.P.C., irrespective of the fact that there is any inappropriate

mentioning of the relevant statutory provisions, in the apposite application.

Since apart from the above, no other argument has been addressed by the

learned counsel for the petitioner to ask for anullment of the impugned order.

Therefore, and, also when huge monetary sums have entered in the accounts of

the petitioner, thereupon, unless he is disabled to operationalize the accounts,

through an order of freezing being made qua his accounts, and, qua the bank,

thereupon it would beget a further ill-consequence of his impermissibly

utilizing the crime money, whereas, valid disbursements thereof would occur

only upon completion of the trial.

6. The petition is disposed of.

                                               (SURESHWAR THAKUR)
                                                     JUDGE
March 29, 2022
Gurpreet

Whether speaking/reasoned :              Yes
Whether reportable        :              Yes

                                3 of 3