Chandra Prakash Baid vs State Of Kerala & Ors.

Ext.P7 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna, insofar as it relates to the direction for the release of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the account No.539104000018054 of IDBI Bank, Goregaon branch, Mumbai, to the account of the 4th respondent herein, is under challenge in this Original Petition filed by the account holder of the aforesaid account at IDBI Bank, Goregaon.

The 4^th respondent is said to be a victim of cyber fraud who lost an amount of Rs.9,27,075/- in the online trading conducted at the instance of a group who were later found to be fraudsters. It is stated that the 4^th respondent indulged in trading of an amount of Rs.11,85,000/-, out of which, he received profit of only Rs.2,57,925/-. Complaining of the failure of the accused to return the balance amount, the 4^th respondent preferred a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna, who registered Crime No.1780/2024 of Perinthalmanna Police Station. Later on, the investigating officer claimed to have traced out the accounts to which an amount of Rs.5,80,000/- out of the defrauded amount had gone and accordingly, issued the direction to the banks concerned to keep a lien over the amount so identified. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent had moved the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna for the release of the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,80,000/- to his account. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate passed Ext.P7 order directing the release of the said amount to the petitioner’s account subject to compliance of the conditions including execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount and filing an undertaking to surrender an equal amount of Rs.5,80,000/- in future in case of any direction in the above regard from the courts concerned. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,80,000/- was the amount lawfully invested by the petitioner in share marketing with an OTC Trading Platform operated by certain persons who were involved in financial fraud. According to the petitioner, when he demanded the partial withdrawal of trading profit, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was credited to the account of his wife which was being operated for the transactions. The aforesaid amount was immediately transferred to the account of the petitioner. The petitioner would contend that the withdrawal of further funds was denied though he had invested an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- in the online trading. In connection with the above issue, a crime is said to have been registered as FIR No.484/2024 by the Special Cell (Delhi), Cyber Crime South Police Station, Saket, upon the complaint of the petitioner. The Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House of Courts, New Delhi, is also said to have ordered the defreezing of all the bank accounts of the petitioner subject to filing of indemnity bond for Rs.10,00,000/-. It is from the above amount of Rs.10,00,000/- that the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- mentioned above was frozen and transferred to the account of the 4^th respondent, pursuant to Ext P7 order. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,50,000/- lawfully belongs to him and hence the impugned order of the court below is bad in the eye of law. It is further contended that the aforesaid order was passed in a proceedings in which the petitioner was not a party, and hence the basic principle of natural justice has been violated.

Heard the learned counsel for the original petitioner, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent Bank.

It is true that Ext.P7 order was passed by the court below without the juncture of the petitioner in the party array. At that stage, there was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to look into the claim of any other person in connection with the amount of Rs.5,80,000/- which was ordered to be transferred to the 4^th respondent herein. The question whether the petitioner herein is the most suitable person to hold the aforesaid amount pending the disposal of the case, is a matter to be decided by the learned Magistrate after considering the claim of the petitioner. For that purpose, an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to present his case before the learned Magistrate. The intervention of this Court on the merits of the claims raised by the petitioner and the 4^th respondent for the interim custody of the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, would arise only after the learned Magistrate takes a decision on the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that this original petition is liable to be disposed of with a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna, to afford an opportunity to the petitioner herein to file a claim petition for the release of the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,50,000/- which formed part of the amount of Rs.5,80,000/- transferred to the interim custody of the 4^th respondent vide Ext P7 order.

In the result, the original petition is disposed of as follows: