AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NARENDRA D. V. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) v. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER This petition calling in question the notices issued at

(BY SRI AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NARENDRA D. V. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONERS

SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J. P. NAGAR POLICE STATION, JAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34579 WP No. 22548 of 2021 BENGALURU - 560 078.

SRI BIJAY BIHANI, AGED MAJOR, M/S RADIANT HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED, B-204, CASA ANSAL APARTMENTS, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, JP NAGAR 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 076. (BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 21.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H1. QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 12.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H2. QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 15.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H3. QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 06.11.2021, ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H4. QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 20.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H5. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34579 WP No. 22548 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER This petition calling in question the notices issued at Annexure-H1 to H5 wherein, respondent No.1 has issued notices to freeze the Bank accounts with different Banks maintained by the petitioners.

2. The occasion to issue such notices is the complaint filed by respondent No.2. As evident from the impugned notices, the petitioners were intending to open a hospital and respondent No.2 was offered to establish a Pharmacy in the said hospital. In furtherance of such offer, respondent No.2 deposited a sum of Rs.2 crore. The petitioners failed to fulfill the offer permitting the respondent No.3 in opening the Pharmacy at the hospital after receiving a sum of Rs.2 crore as negotiated.

Respondent No.1 has registered FIR Cr.No.198/2021 dated 12.10.2021 for the offences under Section 420 R/w Section 34 of IPC. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34579 WP No. 22548 of 2021

Sri Akash Kumar Gowda learned counsel for Sri Navendra D.V., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the transaction as contended by respondent No.1 with the petitioners is a disputed fact. It is further submitted that the dispute is merely on contract which has no element of any ingredients, warranting any investigation for the offences under IPC. It is submitted that the direction to freeze the Bank account in the notices issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., is without any jurisdiction and beyond the scope of Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

Sri S.H. Raghavendra learned AGA respondent No.1 submits that the police have registered FIR against the petitioners for the offences under Section 420 R/w Section 34 of IPC. It is submitted that as the amount involved in the complaint is to be secured, the police-authorities have rightly issued orders for freezing the Bank accounts. Further submits that in the event, this Court considers de-freezing the Bank account, the petitioner should be put on terms. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34579 WP No. 22548 of 2021

Learned AGA further submits petitioners should be directed to furnish Bank guarantee or personal bond to the extent of the amount involved in the complaint.

Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the writ papers.

The complaint filed by respondent No.2 is in relation to payment of Rs.2 crore in acceptance of the offer made by the petitioners to establish a Pharmacy in the hospital to be set up by the petitioners. Any dispute regarding the non-fulfillment of the contract or offer conditions would be the Civil dispute.

At present, this Court is not inclined to examine the fulfillment of ingredients of Section 420 and 34 of IPC. This Court is concerned only with the correctness of the issuance of notices at Annexure-H1 to H5 freezing the Bank accounts.

The submission of learned AGA that the petitioners should be directed to provide Bank guarantee - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34579 WP No. 22548 of 2021 or personal bond does not arise in the facts of the present case. The amounts in the Bank account are not alleged to be from the proceeds of crime. In such circumstances, freezing of account is without jurisdiction and not sustainable.