Madras High Court
Uma Maheswari vs The State Rep. By on 20 December, 2013
Author: P.Devadass
Bench: P.Devadass
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.12.2013
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS
Criminal O.P.Nos.15467, 15573, 15982 and 15983 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Crl.O.P.No.15467 of 2013
1.Uma Maheswari
2.S.Yuvaraj
... Petitioners in
Crl.O.P.Nos.15467, 15573 & Crl.O.P.No.15982 of 2013
Uma Maheswari ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15983 of 2013
Vs.
1.The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008. ... 1st respondent/complainant
in all Crl.O.Ps.
2.R.Kailash Kumar ... 2nd respondent/Defacto
complainant
(in Crl.O.P.No.15467 of 2013)
Crl.O.P.No.15467 of 2013 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR in Crime No.99 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police.
Crl.O.P.No.15573 of 2013 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to direct the respondent to de-freeze the SB Account No.449470294 of the second petitioner and O.D. Account No.6038777616 of Maha Foundation, Proprietrix, Mrs. Uma Maheswari and safe deposit lockers standing in their names, passed by the order dated 31.5.2013 issued by the Indian Bank, Kilpauk Branch K.037 103, New Avadi Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010, and direct the Indian Bank to permit the petitioner to operate their accounts.
Crl.O.P.No.15982 of 2013 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to direct the respondent to de-freeze the Housing Loan Account NCH No.2298, 2299 and 2300 of the petitioners passed by the order dated 18.6.2013 issued by Repco Home Finance Ltd, Plot No.4055, U Block, No.10, 4th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040 and direct the Repco Home Finance Ltd to permit the petitioner to operate their joint accounts.
Crl.O.P.No.15983 of 2013 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to direct the respondent to de-freeze the F.D.R.No.3247157085 in the name of the petitioner which was freezed by the order dated 18.6.2013 issued by the Central Bank of India, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai-600 040.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Natarajan, Senior Counsel,
for Mr.R.Natesh Kumar
in All Crl.O.Ps.
For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R-1
Mr.T.Arokiadass for
Mr.M.A.Muthalakan for R-2
********
COMMON ORDER
Since the four criminal original petitions are connected on facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Kailashkumar, the intervenor, lodged a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as against the 2nd petitioner(A-2), his wife, the first petitioner (A-1) and her mother(A-3). Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai directed the respondent police to register a case and investigate. Accordingly, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.99 of 2013 for offences under Section 406, 420, 120(B) IPC as against A1 to A3.
3. On the written requisition of the Investigation Officer, the Repco Home Finance Ltd, Anna Nagar, Chennai, the Central Bank of India, Anna Nagar, Chennai and Indian Bank, Kilpauk Branch, Kilpauk, Chennai have freezed the Bank accounts maintained by the petitioners.
4. To quash the F.I.R. the petitioners (A1 and A2) have filed Crl.O.P.No.15467 of 2013 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. The petitioners have also filed Crl.O.P.Nos.15573, 15982 and 15983 of 2013 for issuance of direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to defreeze the said Bank accounts.
6. Mr.A.Natarajan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that on 1.12.2010 for the construction of six flats in a property measuring 3050 Sq.ft., a joint development agreement has been entered into between the defacto complainant and the first petitioner (A-1). The sharing of the flats and the undivided property shall be in the ratio of 50:50. In the agreement, the pre-existing mortgages on the property with certain Banks have been disclosed. As per the said agreement, within 30 days, the defacto complainant has to discharge the mortgages. Thus, time has been made as essence of the contract. However, the defacto complainant did not do so. Thus, on 13.11.2011, a supplemental agreement was executed extending the period. What was received from the defacto complainant has been remitted by A-1 to the Bank towards the discharge of the mortgage. Nothing has been burked in the joint development agreement. There was no dis-honest intention to cheat the defacto complainant at the inception of the transaction. No amount or property has been entrusted to the petitioners.
7. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the defacto complainant had burked some material details in his complaint. Even in his supplemental agreement dated 13.11.2011 he has stated that he had paid Rs.80 lakhs to the first petitioner. However, in his complaint, he has stated that he had paid Rs.1,20,00,000/-. Further, a cheque for Rs.20 lakhs issued by him also has been bounced. Thus, even taking the allegations in the F.I.R as such they do not disclose the offences alleged. What actually is purely a civil transaction, breach of terms and conditions of an agreement. In fact, the contract was breached by the defacto complainant to cover his default. He gives a criminal colour to a civil matter. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that this is a fit case that the F.I.R. is to be quashed.
8. In support of his said submissions, the learned Senior Counsel cited the following decisions:-
(1) RAM BIRAJI DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs. UMESH KUMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER [AIR 2006 SC 2035].
(2) DALIP KAUR AND ORS. Vs. JAGNAR SINGH AND ANOTHER [AIR 2009 SC 3191].
(3) JOSEPH SALVARAJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [2011(6) SCALE 731].
(4) M/s.THERMAX LTD & ORS. Vs. K.M.JOHNY & ORS. [2012(1) L.W.(Crl.) 367.
(5) CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI Vs. K.C.PALANISAMY AND OTHERS[2013 (6) SCC 740].
(6) SARABJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [2013 (6) SCC 800].
9. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that on the written requisition of the Investigation Officer, the Bank accounts of the petitioners were freezed. As per Section 105(E) Cr.P.C. within 30 days such seizure has to be confirmed by the Court. However, in this case, this has not been done. The mandatory requirement of law has been violated. Thus, the freezing of the Bank accounts is vitiated. In such circumstances, they have to be defreezed.
10. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel cited K.MAHENDRAN Vs. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, XII TEAM, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, CHENNAI, [2007 (1) MLJ (Crl) 794].
11. Mr.T.Arokiadass, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant contended that by deceitful means the petitioners have let the defacto complainant to part with more than Rs.1 crore. A-1 had let the defacto complainant to believe that she had power of attorney with respect to the land over which the flats have to be constructed by the defacto complainant. Believing her, the defacto complainant gave her huge amount. The amounts were given to discharge the existing mortgages on the property and for delivery of the documents. However, it came to be light that the land owners have already cancelled the general power of attorney given to the first petitioner/A-1. Subsequently, after obtaining general power from the land owners, A-1 had executed the sale deed in favour of her mother/A3 and on the same day, A3 had settled the property on her daughter/A1. Ultimately, the defacto complainant was cheated. There is dishonest intention on the part of the accused from the very inception of the transaction and also throughout. The money entrusted to the petitioners were misappropriated. There is prima facie case as against the petitioners.
12. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant further contended that in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal proceedings the merit of the matter cannot be gone into. This Court cannot analyze the materials like a trial Court and find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. On perusal of the allegations in the F.I.R. and the materials, if they disclose a prima facie case as to the offences alleged the criminal proceedings cannot be stifled. The allegations in the F.I.R and the materials disclose the commission of the offences alleged.
13. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant cited the following decisions:-
(1) STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. M.DEVENDRAPPA AND ANOTHER [2002 (3) SCC 89].
(2) STATE OF A.P. Vs. GOLCONDA LINGA SWAMY AND ANOTHER [2004 (6) SCC 522].
(3) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. K.M.SHARAN [2008 (4) SCC 471].
(4) PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY ALIAS RAMU Vs. KOVVURI SATYANARAYANA REDDY [2011 (12) SCC 437].
14. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant further contended that the accused have put the swindled money in their Bank accounts. The Investigation Officer has duly reported the Court about the freezing of the Bank accounts. In such circumstances, defreezing of the bank accounts cannot be directed.
15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations in the F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offences. The Investigation Officer recorded the statement of the defacto complainant and other witnesses and also confessional statement of the accused. Based on the information given, certain incriminating materials also have been recovered. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the principals have cancelled the power given to the first petitioner long back. But, the petitioners have not disclosed it to the defacto complainant. After receiving huge amount, the first petitioner had executed the sale deed in favour of her mother(A-3) and on the same day she had executed a settlement deed in favour of her daughter(A-1). There is prima facie case against the petitioners. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the Investigation Officer duly reported the freezing of the Bank Accounts to the jurisdiction Magistrate. The mandatory requirement of law has been complied with.
16. I have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused the F.I.R, the materials on record, common counter of the defacto complainant and the decisions cited.
17. There are two issues. If the F.I.R. is quashed, automatically the Bank accounts have to be defreezed. But, if the F.I.R. is not quashed, then there would be further question whether the freezing of the Bank accounts is in accordance with law and whether it is required to be defreezed.
18. The High Court exercises important jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This jurisdiction has three dimensions. It can be exercised to i) implement any orders passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. ii) to prevent abuse of process of any Court and iii) to secure the ends of justice. It is intended to do justice and also undo injustice. Very wide power has been conferred. It is required to be exercised sparingly. In fit cases, this power has to be exercised. Apparently, the Section does not contain any limitations. But, this power should not be misused by any one. It cannot be used to promote injustice. This power is not unguided. The Courts have created certain self imposed limitations on the exercise of this power.
19. The Court has to see whether the F.I.R. and the material produced disclose a prima facie case. In doing so, the Court cannot analyze or shift the evidence and meticulously see whether it will end in conviction or acquittal. Thus, it cannot act like a trial Court. So, merit of the matter have to be left to the trial Court.
20. As regards exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its land mark judgment in STATE OF HARYANA VS. BAJANLAL [1992 (1) SUPP (SCC) 335], in para 102, laid down the following guidance:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
21. The principles laid down in BAJANLAL (supra) has also been recently reiterated by a Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in LALITA KUMARI Vs. GOVT. OF U.P.& ORS (W.P.(Criminal)No.68 of 2008 decided on 12.11.2013).
22. In the case before us, offences under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) are alleged in the F.I.R. So far as the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust is concerned, the accused should have fraudulent and dishonest intention at the very inception of transaction, making promise or representation. Fraudulent or dishonest intention should be shown right from the beginning of the transaction.
23. Kailashkumar, the defacto complainant is a builder. He is running 'R.K. Construction' in T.Nagar, Chennai. Admittedly, the first petitioner(A-1) is owning 900 sq.ft. of land in Sourashtra Nagar, Choolaimadu. In its rear portion, there is 2150 sq.ft. Total extent is 3050 sq.ft. With regard to the entire property, on 1.12.2010, the first petitioner had entered into a joint development agreement with the defacto complainant. In the agreement, she had stated that for the said 900 sq.ft. as owner and for the balance 2150 sq.ft. as power agent of land owners she had entered into the agreement. The agreement is with the defacto complainant for constructing six flats on the said land in the ratio of 50:50. Three flats have to be given to the first petitioner and the balance three flats shall be retained by the defacto complainant.
24. In the said development agreement, it was disclosed that the first petitioner had mortgaged her 900 sq.ft. with the Bank of India, Anna Nagar Branch, and the balance 2150 sq.ft. has been mortgaged with the Central Bank of India, Anna Nagar Branch. Within 30 days from 1.12.2010, the defacto complainant has to discharge the mortgages, failing which the agreement becomes null and void. In the F.I.R it is alleged that the defacto complainant has to pay Rs.1,20,00,000/- to A-1. It is alleged that on the date of the agreement, the defacto complainant paid A-1 Rs.20 lakhs as security deposit. This has also been mentioned in the joint development agreement.
25. Subsequently, on 13.11.2011, a supplemental agreement has been executed whereunder the time has been extended. It is stated in the said supplemental agreement that Rs.80 lakhs has been paid to the first petitioner. It is towards the mortgages. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the first petitioner had discharged the mortgage on her property measuring 900 sq.ft. However, the mortgage over 2150 sq.ft., with the Central Bank of India has not been discharged. In the F.I.R. it is alleged that further amount was demanded, the defacto complainant had issued a cheque for Rs.20 lakhs and on verification with the Central Bank of India, it came to light that the owners of 2150 sq.ft. have cancelled the power given to the first petitioner as early as in 2008. This has not been disputed by the petitioners. As per the allegations in the complaint, subsequently, the defacto complainant took efforts and made the said owners to give general power of attorney to the first petitioner. However, on 27.12.2012, the first petitioner executed the sale deed with respect to the properties in favour of her mother Vasantha(A-3) and on the same day, A-3 executed a settlement deed in favour of her daughter(A-1).
26. It is pertinent to note that at the very inception of the transaction, namely, on 1.12.2010, when the joint development agreement was executed there was representation by the first petitioner to the defacto complainant that she is holding general power of attorney with respect to 2150 sq.ft. situate in the rear side of her property measuring 900 sq.ft. Subsequently, it came to light that the power was cancelled by the land owners in 2008 itself. After receiving huge amount from the defacto complainant, the documents were not released to the defacto complainant. However, behind the back of the defacto complainant, entire ownership has been changed to A-3 and again on the same day A-3 re-conveyed it by way of a settlement deed to A-1. Ultimately, the defacto complainant has been cheated.
27. The arguments of the petitioner that some portions of the allegations in the complaint are false are matters to be established before the trial Court. Merit aspects cannot be adjudicated by this Court like a trial Court.
28. Prima facie there are allegations in the F.I.R. disclosing commission of cognizable offences as alleged, namely, cheating, criminal breach of trust. Taking the allegations in the F.I.R., the materials consisting of statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the documents would disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences as alleged. In the circumstances, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed.
29. Now we will go to the next question, namely, defreezing of the Bank accounts.
30. On the written requisition of the Investigation Officer, the Bank accounts and deposit locker held by the petitioners in certain Banks have been freezed by the Bank, in other words, they have prohibited the operation of the bank accounts by the account holder. Their details are as under:-
1) Indian Bank, Kilpauk Brnach, S.B. Jt. A/c.No.449470294 in the name of Uma Maheswari and Yuvaraj with Safety Locker.(Freezing letter dated 3.5.2013).
2) Indian Bank, Kilpauk Branch Current A/c.No.6038777616 in the name of "Maha Foundation" (Freezing letter dated 3.5.2013).
3)Central Bank of India, Anna Nagar Branch, FDR A/c.No.3247157085 in the name of Tmt.Uma Maheswari.(Freezing letter dated 3.4.2013).
4)Repco Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Housing Loan A/c No.NCH.2298, NCH.2299 & NCH 2300 in the name of Mrs.Uma Maheswari,(Freezing letter dated 30.4.2013).
31. When information as to the commission of a cognizable offence is reported to the officer in-charge of the Police Station, he has to register FIR (See : Section 154, Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, it is his statutory duty to investigate the crime (See : Section 156(1)). As per Section 2(h), Cr.P.C., "investigation" refers to all the actions taken by the Investigating Officer to collect the required evidence in connection with the crime reported. It is to bring home the offence to the offender.
32. One of the process of investigation is seizure of case-properties. There are properties with respect to which an offence has been committed. Another category is property used in the commission of offence. It may be movable or immovable. Close on the heels are stolen properties and properties which create suspicion of commission of an offence.
33. In seizing the properties, the investigating officer has to follow certain procedures. That has been prescribed in Section 102 Cr.P.C. It runs as under :
"102.Power of police officer to seize certain property.-(1)Any Police Officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
(2)Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a Police Station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.
(3)Every Police Officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same:
Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of Sections 457, and 458, shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale."
[emphasis supplied]
34. In STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. TAPAS D.NEOGY [1999 (3) CTC 350 (SC)], it was held that the bank account is the property capable of seizure thus, for the purpose of investigation, if it has some bearing on the crime reported, the investigating officer can seize it under section 102 Cr.P.C. by serving a prohibitory order on the bank to freeze the bank account, prohibiting the (accused) / account holder from operating the account. [Also see: SWARAN SABHAR WAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (1998 Cr.L.J 241), RAJAMANI Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SALEM,(2003 Cr.L.J., 2902) and RANGANATHAN Vs. STATE (2003 Cr.L.J.2779) ]
35. For the purpose of Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. cash on hand and cash at bank in bank account are properties.
36. Section 102(1) describes the categories of properties to be seized. When an officer subordinate to the SHO seize them, he must report the seizure to his superior. Section 102(3) mandates that every seizure of property under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. shall be reported to the jurisdiction Magistrate.
37.In R.CHANDRASEKAR VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SALEM [2002 (5) CTC 598], it was held that seizure of bank account by the investigating officer must be reported to the Magistrate as it is a mandatory requirement of law.
38. CHANDRASEKAR (supra) was subsequently followed in PADMINI VS. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DCB, TIRUNELVELI [2008 (3) CTC 657].
39. In Dr.SHASHIKANT D. KARNIK VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2008 CRL.L.J. 148], it was held that seizure of property under Section 102 Cr.P.C has to be reported to the Magistrate.
40. In VINOSHKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN VALLUVAR VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) 497 (FB)(Bom.)], a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the requirement of reporting of freezing of bank account to the Magistrate prescribed under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C is mandatory in nature.
41. In pursuing investigation under Section 102 Cr.P.C., the Code empowered the police officers to deprive a person of his properties. In this context, the phrase, "shall" employed in Section 102(3) Cr.P.C, is held to be mandatory in nature. Violation of it goes to the root of the matter.
42. In K.MAHENDRAN Vs. STATE REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, XII TEAM, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, CHENNAI, [2007 (1) MLJ (Crl) 794], cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, a learned Single Judge of this Court referring to section 105(E)(2) Cr.P.C. held that the freezing of the Bank accounts will have no effect unless it is confirmed by the Magistrate within 30 days of freezing of the Bank account.
43. The said Section 105(E) occurs in Chapter VII-A of the Cr.P.C. The said Chapter consisting of Section 105(A) to 105(L) was inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure on 20.7.1994 by way of Central Act 14/1993. It is intended by way of reciprocal arrangement for assistance in certain matters and procedures for attachment or forfeiture of the property. With regard to certain extra-territorial activity, in other words it is intended for collecting evidence outside India and matters connected thereto in India elaborate procedure has been made in Section 105(A) to 105(L) Cr.P.C. In that connection in Section 105(E)(2) Cr.P.C. confirmation within 30 days of seizure has been prescribed. Section 105(E) Cr.P.C. has nothing to do with the seizure provided in Section 102 Cr.P.C. Our case is covered under Section 102 Cr.P.C. Let us focus our attention only on Section 102 Cr.P.C.
44. The Investigation Officer has suspected that the moneys swindled were secreted by the accused persons in their Bank accounts. Thus, he took steps to freeze the Bank accounts.
45. We have elaborately seen that such freezing of the Bank accounts shall be reported to the jurisdiction Magistrate. When it is to be reported has been stated in Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. It is stated therein that it shall be reported "forthwith" to the jurisdiction Magistrate. The reporting of the freezing of the Bank accounts is mandatory. Failure to do so will vitiate the freezing of the bank account. In this back drop of the matter, the word "forthwith" shall mean 'immediately', 'without delay', 'soon'.
46. In this case, the freezing of the Bank accounts were done on 30.04.2013 and on 3.5.2013. However, the Investigation Officer has reported this to the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet only on 27.6.2013. This will not be reporting of the freezing of the Bank account to the Magistrate forthwith. Thus, there is breach of mandatory requirement of law. Thus, the freezing of the Bank accounts is vitiated.
47. In view of the foregoings:-
(i) The F.I.R. cannot be quashed. Thus, Crl.O.P.No.15467 of 2013 is dismissed.
(ii) The freezing of the Bank accounts, namely, SB A/c.No.449470294 in the name of petitioners, namely, Uma Maheswari and Yuvaraj, O.D. A/c.No.6038777616 in the name of "Maha Foundation" of first petitioner, namely, Uma Maheswari and the safe deposit locker in their names with the Indian Bank, Kilpauk Branch, New Avadi Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, FDR No.3247157085 in the name of first petitioner Uma Maheswari in the Central Bank of India, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai and Housing Loan A/c.No.NCH 2298, NCH 2299 & NCH 2300 in the name of petitioners with the Repco Home Finance Limited, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai are set aside and consequently they are defreezed.
(iii) Since the accounts are now defreezed on account of certain technical snag, the investigating officer, if need be, can freeze the accounts strictly following the provisions of Section 102 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, Criminal Original Petition Nos.15573, 15982 and 15983 of 2013 are allowed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
20.12.2013 Index : Yes Internet : Yes rrg To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai -8.
2.The Inspector of Police, Team-III, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai-8.
3.The Manager, Indian Bank, New Avadi Branch, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.
4.The Manager, Central Bank of India, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai-10.
5.The Manager, Repco Home Finance Ltd., Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai-40.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
P.DEVADASS, J.
rrg Pre Delivery Order in Crl.O.P.Nos.15467,15573, 15982 and 15983 of 2013 20.12.2013