Jharkhand High Court
Atishay Limited Through Its Managing ... vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 19 August, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr) No. 257 of 2022
Atishay Limited through its Managing Director Akhilesh Jain
.......... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others
...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Adovcate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. For the respondent-Bank: Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate .................
09/Dated: 19/08/2023 This petition has been filed for direction upon the respondents to defreeze the bank account bearing A/C No. 000385700000581 which belongs to petitioner-company.
2. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-company is public limited company. He submits that the informant namely, Pratyush Nath lodged Cyber P.S. Case No. 19 of 2021 alleging therein that the informant received a phone call on 05.04.2021 and it was stated to the petitioner from another side that his SIM is about to be deactivated for which he had to recharge his phone. He further submits that the informant was asked to download a mobile app and thereafter an amount of Rs. 2,53,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the informant through INB RAZORPAY SFT PVT LTD NOIDA. He submits that said INB RAZORPAY SFT PVT LTD NOIDA is a platform which is used for money transaction and the said transaction was made through that platform and in the investigation everything was provided by the petitioner. He submits that the payment was made through that platform that is why the account of the petitioner has been freezed and the said platform belongs to the petitioner-company. He submits that direction was issued by the I.O. to freeze the account of the petitioner which is in the YES Bank in Noida. He submits that the said order was not communicated to the learned Court under sub-section 3 of section 102 of the Cr.P.C. that is why the petitioner is not having any alternative remedy.
3. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits 2 that pursuant to that crime the said case was registered and the petitioner is having alternative remedy under section 451 of the Cr.P.C.
4. Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the bank has only complied the order of the I.O. and bank has nothing to do with the case.
5. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the bank account of the petitioner was directed to be freezed only on the ground that said platform was used for payment of a sum of Rs. 2,59,000/- and odd. This has happened pursuant to a letter sent to the bank by the I.O. The freezing order has not been communicated to the learned court under sub-section 3 of section 102 of Cr.P.C which is mandatory in nature. The petitioner is a company and the petitioner is not able to disburse the salary of the employees of the company. The petitioner is even not accused in the said F.I.R.
6. The stage of section of 451 of Cr.P.C. is not coming in the way as mandatory provision under sub-section 3 of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. has not been complied and in view of that the Court is not accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the State
7. In view of above facts, the said account shall be defreezed which has been freezed pursuant to the request made by the I.O. with a condition that a sum of Rs. 2,59,000/- shall be maintained by the petitioner in the said account till disposal of case by the learned court.
8. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/