Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently held that Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not empower the investigating agency to order the debit freeze of a bank accoun.

“Since bare perusal of aforesaid provision of law, as reproduced hereinabove, clearly reveals that Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not empower the Investigating Agency to order debit freeze of bank account, coupled with the fact that at no point of time, procedure, as envisaged under Section 102 Cr.P.C. was followed by the respondent before ordering debit freeze..,” the order reads.

A single-judge bench of the high court comprising Justice Sandeep Mishra was hearing a petition filed by Aeronfly International Private Limited challenging the communication of the investigating agency to debit freeze the bank account of the company.

The case pertained to a cyber complaint filed by a man who allegedly received a link, and after he clicked on it, Rs. 10,000 was debited from his account and credited to the petitioner’s bank account. The petitioner then intimated its bank to refund the money to its source account.

However, it found that the bank officials had frozen the account based on a communication sent by the investigating agencies under Section 91 of the CrPC.

The petitioner argued that various legal provisions should be decided by the competent court of law based on the totality of evidence collected by the prosecution.

However, it contended that no orders could be passed by the investigating agency under Section 91 of the CrPC, directing the bank to debit freeze the company’s account.

The petitioner further stated that the freezing of the bank account had caused hundreds of the company's employees to suffer due to the non-payment of their salaries.

The bench agreed with the contentions of the petitioner and quashed the communication while noting that, “At no point of time, process, if any, ever came to be initiated at the behest of Investigating Officer to start process against accused under Section 102 Cr.P.C., rather Investigating Officer itself without there being any authority of law proceeded to order debit freeze of the account of accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C, which was not permissible,” the order reads

For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Mishra, Mr. Anshuman Singh Kangarot and Ms. Kiran Sharma, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3/State, along with ASI Vijay Kumar, I.O., Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate, for the respondent No.4

Case title: Aeronfly International Private Limited vs State of HP & Ors