The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2041 of 2024 SP Innovations Technologies L.L.P -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Superintendent Of Police, CID and Cyber Crime Branch, Bhubaneswar 3) IIC, CID and Cyber Crime Branch, Bhubaneswar 4) Cosmos Cooperative Bank, Bengaluru Branch, Bengaluru ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Anupam Rath ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. M.K. Mohanty, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 14.08.2024 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to direct the Opposite Party No.2 to defreeze/unfreeze his Bank Account, i.e. Account Name- SP Innovations Technologies LLP, Account Type-Current, Account No-039100106699, Branch-Bangalore, IFSC Code- COSB0000039, Bank Name-Cosmos Bank (Opposite Party No.4). 3. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties and Mr. Bijit Kumar Page 1 of 5. Behera, Inspector of Police, CID and CB, Cuttack, who is present in person in Court today. Perused the materials on record. 4. On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that a compliant was lodged in the NCRB portal regarding commission of a cyber crime by one Rahul Jeet. In the said complaint, it has been alleged that the Petitioner’s firm, which is engaged in the business of software development and consultation and has branches in Bangalore, Kolkata and overseas (in U.S.), has fraudulently debited a sum of Rs.13,000/- from the bank account of the present Petitioner through the Opposite Party No.4-Bank, where the Petitioner’s company has its current account, i.e. the money from the bank account of the complainant has been transferred to the account of the present Petitioner maintained by the Opposite Party No.4-Bank at Bangaluru. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the money, which was wrongly debited to the account of the complainant and credited to the account the Petitioner-Company, has already been returned to the complainant. 6. The Inspector of Police, CID & CB, Cuttack, who is present in Court today, admitted that a sum of Rs.13,000/- has already been credited to the account of the complainant in the meantime by the Petitioner, therefore, the alleged cheated amount has already been returned. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the bank account of the Petitioner has been freezed by the Opposite Party No.4-Bank on the request of the Cyber Crime Police Station. Page 2 of 5. He further contended that the Petitioner’s company is facing immense difficulties in transacting their day to day business activities as their bank account has been freezed. 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer to defreeze the bank account of the Petitioner on the ground that there are several complaints pending against the Petitioner’s company with regard to allegation of commission of cyber fraud crime. The Inspector of Police, CID & CB, Cuttack, who is appearing in person, submitted that on the basis of the complaint lodged by different persons in a portal provided by the NCRB, the concerned bank acted upon such information and immediately freezed the accounts of the persons involved in such type of cyber fraud. He further contended that a total 23 complaints have been received against the Petitioner’s company as is evident from the said web portal. So far the state of Odisha is concerned, there was only one complaint by the present complainant regarding illegal transfer of a sum of Rs.13,000/- from his account which has been transferred to the Petitioner’s company account. 9. On a query being put by this Court, the Inspector of Police, CID & CB, Cuttack, has submitted that apart from the complaint lodged by the present complainant, there is no other complaint in the State of Orissa and that the complainant in the present case has already received the money that was debited. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that on the basis of the letter written by the Opposite Party No.3, the bank account of the Petitioner has been freezed by the Opposite Party No.4-Bank. He further contended that since Page 3 of 5. there is one complaint and the complainant has already been repaid the illegally debited amount in the meantime, the Opposite Party No.3 be directed to write a letter to the Opposite Party No.4-Bank to defreeze the bank account. 11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that there are other complaints against the Petitioner’s company. Therefore, the bank account cannot not defreezed at this juncture since the inquiry is still continuing. 12. Considering the surrounding facts and circumstances, this Court observes that, so far the State of Odisha is concerned, there is only one complaint and admittedly the complainant has received the money that was debited from his account, and there is no other complaint pertaining to the State of Odisha. So far the allegation with regard to other complaints, against the Petitioner’s company, in the NCRB portal, the same relates to different States, as has been stated by Inspector of Police, CID & CB, Cuttack. 13. Therefore, with regard to the complaints against the Petitioner-Company made in the NCRB portal relating to different States, this Court is of the view that action on such complaints can very well be taken by the police in the respective States where the fraud has taken place, or under whose jurisdiction the fraud has happened or wherever the complainants resides, by requesting the concerned Bank to defreeze the account. So far as the State of Odisha is concerned, there is one complaint and on the basis of such complaint, Opposite Party No.3 has written a letter to Opposite Party No.4-Bank to freeze the account. In the meanwhile, however, the grievance of the complainant having Page 4 of 5. already been redressed and money having been repaid to the complaint, this Court is of the view that there is no further need to keep the bank account of the Petitioner frozen at the instance of Odisha police. 14. In such view of the matter, on a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case and, taking into consideration the fact that no formal F.I.R. has been registered against the Petitioner as of now, this Court deems it proper to direct the Opposite Party No.3 to issue necessary direction/request to the Opposite Party No.4 to defreeze the account of the Petitioner. However, such request for defreezing the account shall be subject to the Petitioner furnishing an undertaking before the Opposite Party No.3 assuring to participate in the investigation process and that the Petitioner would make good the losses that might have occurred in the process of the transaction and that genuine complaint, if any, received in the meanwhile shall also be taken care of by the Petitioner-Company. Let the aforesaid direction be carried out within one week. 15. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC stands disposed of. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 16-Aug-2024 18:58:03 Page 5 of 5.