SRI. R. PARTHASARATHY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY POLICE INSPECTOR, BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION.

CANARA BANK SOUTH END ROAD BRANCH, NO.96, SOUTH END ROAD, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

Heard Sri Anup Seetharam Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent – State. Perused the records.

Petitioner is seeking for issue of writ of mandamus to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to de-freeze the current account, bearing No.2442201002803, maintained

Petitioner is running a Jewellery shop under the name and style of Vijayashree Jewellers, C.T. Street, Bengaluru, and in respect of said business, petitioner had opened current account No.2442201002803 with respondent No.2 – Bank. Petitioner is an Income Tax Assessee and he claim to have accounted for all his income. Petitioner is said to have come in contact with one Sri Narasimhamurthy, agent of a firm M/s. Vikram Investments, which dealt with commodities exchange and trading. Based on the assurance of Sri Narasimhamurthy, petitioner is said to have started investing money from the year 2011, on the assurance of monthly returns of his investments, and also loss, if any, to be borne by the petitioner himself. For the income derived from the said investments, petitioner claims to have paid total income

One Sri P. R. Balaji, lodged a complaint against the above said M/s. Vikram Investments including the agent Sri Narasimhamurthy and others which came to be registered in Crime No.73 of 2018 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 39 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004. Said proceeding is now pending before the jurisdictional Court. On account of investigation having been taken up by the jurisdictional Police, namely respondent No.1 - Banashankari Police Station (now the investigation is conducted by C.I.D.), account No.2442201002803 of petitioner came to be freezed on the basis of direction issued by Investigating Officer and as

The co-ordinate Bench of this Court while examining similar claim of yet another investor, who had invested money from M/s. Vikram Investments and had received the returns had been examined by this Court and in order to balance the conflicting interest of the investors as well as the interest of the investigating agency, this Court had directed the Bank therein to de-freeze the account conditionally, namely on the condition that petitioner should furnish bond for the difference of amount, namely amount received less amount deposited.

In the instant case, Sri Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate, has made submission that petitioner had invested a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and had received Rs.38,53,333/- and excess amount, as such, according to the investigation, as on date received by the petitioner is to the tune of

Sri Anup Seetharam Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would fairly submit that petitioner is ready and willing to furnish a security bond for the excess amount of Rs.8,53,333/- received by petitioner. In the light of said submission, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner would be entitled to the relief sought for, namely for de-freezing the current account, bearing No. 2442201002803, at respondent No.2 - Bank, subject to petitioner furnishing a bond for Rs.8,53,333/- before the jurisdictional Court, namely before the Court where proceedings are now pending. In the event of such bond being furnished, jurisdictional Court shall immediately thereafter issue an order for de-freezing the current account bearing No. 2442201002803 of petitioner which is maintained with second respondent - Bank.