Deon Jibu vs State of Haryana and Ors

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) seeking setting aside of the continuing operation/effect of the order dated 06.03.2024 (P-1) passed by the learned ACJM, Rohtak in CRM No.717 of 2024 arising out of FIR No.54 dated 01.11.2023, registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Cyber, Rohtak, and for quashing of all consequential actions arising therefrom, with a further prayer for restoration/release of the amount of Rs.3,32,922/- or, in the alternative, for time-bound disposal of the remanded proceedings.

The FIR in question was registered on the basis of a complaint alleging online fraud through Telegram and WhatsApp task-based schemes. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. During the course of proceedings, an application was moved seeking release of certain amounts allegedly connected with the transaction. The matter was placed before the learned Link Magistrate, Rohtak/ACJM, as the learned CJM-cum-ACJ(SD), Rohtak was on CCL. Vide order dated 06.03.2024, the learned Link Magistrate, on the basis of the report of the SHO concerned, directed transfer of an amount of Rs.3,32,922/- from Account No.41419761284 to Account No.133705003626, along with directions for transfer of other amounts from different accounts. The order further directed the Investigating Officer to obtain copies of the transactions from the concerned bank and tag the same with the challan. The said order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Vide judgment dated 24.02.2026 passed in CRR-99 of 2025, the learned Revisional Court accepted the revision and held that the petitioner could not have been condemned unheard. Accordingly, the order dated 06.03.2024 was set aside to that extent and the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court for passing a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 was passed without issuance of any notice to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not even named in the FIR and there is no material connecting him with the alleged online fraud. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid order has already been challenged by the petitioner before the learned Revisional Court and vide judgment dated 24.02.2026 passed in CRR-99 of 2025, the order dated 06.03.2024 was set aside to the extent that it was passed without hearing the petitioner, with a direction to the learned Trial Court to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid remand, the amount of Rs.3,32,922/- continues to remain withheld, without any fresh adjudication by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel also points out that the order dated 06.03.2024 records that the amount was to be transferred in favour of applicant Kunal Singh/Kunal Kumar, whereas the subsequent police communication refers to an account maintained in the name of Rohit Kumar, thereby raising a material discrepancy regarding the beneficiary of the amount. It is accordingly contended that the continued retention of the petitioner's money, pursuant to an order already set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, is wholly unjustified.

4 Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the petition and submits that the amount in question was identified during investigation as being connected with the alleged online fraud and that the order dated 06.03.2024 was passed on the basis of the report submitted by the SHO concerned. It is further submitted that the matter already stands remanded by the learned Revisional Court and the petitioner has an effective remedy before the learned Trial Court, where the matter is required to be considered afresh.

I have heard the parties and gone through the record carefully.

Perusal of the order dated 06.03.2024, shows that the learned Link Magistrate passed directions for transfer of the amount on the basis of the report of the SHO concerned. However, admittedly, the said order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which aspect has already been noticed and adjudicated upon by the learned Revisional Court vide judgment dated 24.02.2026. Be that as it may, once the order dated 06.03.2024 has already been set aside to the extent of violation of the principles of natural justice and the matter has been remanded to the learned Trial Court for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner, the consequential issue regarding entitlement to the amount is required to be determined by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. At this stage, this Court does not deem it appropriate to adjudicate upon the disputed entitlement to the amount of Rs.3,32,922/- in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. However, considering that the amount has remained withheld since March, 2024 and the matter has already been remanded by the learned Revisional Court, the learned Trial Court is directed to take up the remanded proceedings and decide the same, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the concerned parties, expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.