- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38934 CRL.P No. 12232 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12232 OF 2025 BETWEEN: AXIS BANK LTD A BANKING COMPANY, CARRYING ON THE BANKING BUSINESS, UNDER THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949, INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 'TRISHUL', 3RD FLOOR, OPP: SAMARTHESHWAR TEMPLE, LAW GARDEN, ELLIS BRIDGE, HEADBAND- 380006. GUJARAT. AND HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT GROUND FLOOR PLOT NO.99, KALINDI HOUSING ESTATE, NORTH 24, PARGANAS-700 089, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH HEAD, MR. SAVIK BANERJEE, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ALSO AT: 106, NABALIA PARA ROAD, PURBA BARISHA, SOUTH 24, PARGANAS, WEST BENGAL-700008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38934 CRL.P No. 12232 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NORTH EAST CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, NORTH EAST DIVISION, BANGALORE DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01. 2. MR. CHANDRASHEKAR S S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 2563, 8TH CROSS, 13TH MAIN E BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU-560092. KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2024 PASSED BY THE 45TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.191/2024 THAT IS ANNEXURE C IN TERMS OF WHICH, THE PETITIONER IS DIRECTED TO DEFREEZE THE SAVING/CURRENT ACCOUNT NO.923020027928127 MAINTAINED IN THE PETITIONERS BANK AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38934 CRL.P No. 12232 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner – a Scheduled Commercial Bank/Financial Institution, assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Court of the 45th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crime No.191/2024. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner-Bank to defreeze the savings/current account bearing No.923020027928127 maintained in the petitioner’s branch, standing in the name of the accused. 2. The petitioner-Bank is gravely aggrieved by the impugned order essentially on the ground that it was passed without affording the Bank an opportunity of hearing, though the directions were addressed exclusively to it. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner-Bank that the order was made at the instance of respondent No.2 – the complainant, without impleading or notifying the petitioner-Bank, which is a necessary stakeholder. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38934 CRL.P No. 12232 of 2025 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader, placing reliance on orders passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in similar and analogous matters, submitted that in identical circumstances, this Court has interfered with such orders and has remitted the matter back to the jurisdictional Magistrate for fresh consideration of applications filed under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”). In those cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that since directions are issued to the Financial Institutions to defreeze accounts, they are indispensable parties to such proceedings, and hence the principles of natural justice require that they be heard before any coercive direction is issued. 4. The petitioner-Bank has further urged that there are multiple criminal cases registered against the accused, not only within the State of Karnataka but also across various jurisdictions in the country. In several of these cases, different courts have issued orders directing the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38934 CRL.P No. 12232 of 2025 petitioner-Bank to defreeze the bank accounts of the accused and transfer the balances to the respective complainants. In the absence of being heard in each proceeding, the petitioner-Bank finds itself unable to effectively and uniformly comply with these multiple and sometimes conflicting orders, thereby exposing itself to unnecessary prejudice and potential contempt. 5. This Court finds substance in the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner-Bank. The record clearly discloses that the petitioner-Bank is the entity upon which the obligation of executing the order falls. When multiple rival claims are pending in different jurisdictions, it is only appropriate that the concerned Bank is put on notice before any order is passed directing defreezing or remittance. The impugned order, having been passed without such notice, is vitiated by non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. Without going into the merits of the rival claims or entitlement of the complainant, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38934 CRL.P No. 12232 of 2025 reconsideration at the hands of the jurisdictional Magistrate. 6. Accordingly, this Court deems it fit to adopt the course followed by the Co-ordinate Bench in analogous cases, where notice to respondent No.2/complainant was dispensed with and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication. In the present case also, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside with a direction to the learned Magistrate to re-examine the matter after issuing notice to the petitioner-Bank/Financial Institution and all other necessary stakeholders. The Magistrate shall also be at liberty to revise or reaffirm the earlier order, depending upon the existence or otherwise of rival claims. In the event it is found that there are no competing claims or conflicting directions, the Magistrate shall not be precluded from directing the Bank to remit the amount in favour of the complainant. However, in order to balance equities, it is clarified that in the event the Bank is required to remit the amount, it shall also pay interest at the rate of 8% per - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38934 CRL.P No. 12232 of 2025 annum from the date of the impugned order till the date of actual payment, and such interest shall be calculated and transferred along with the principal sum. 7. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 28.06.2024 passed in Crime No.191/2024 by the 45th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The petitioner-Bank/Financial Institution is granted two weeks’ time to place before the learned Magistrate the details of rival claims and multiple orders, if any, which have been passed in respect of the same account or transactions. (iv) Upon such details being placed on record, the learned Magistrate shall ensure that the principle of priority based on the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38934 CRL.P No. 12232 of 2025 chronological seniority of orders is strictly adhered to. The complainant entitled under the earliest valid order shall be given preference, and the remittance from the account of the accused shall be effected accordingly. (v) The entire exercise shall be completed by the learned Magistrate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The period of six weeks shall include the two weeks’ time granted to the petitioner-Bank to submit the relevant details. (vi) The learned Magistrate shall issue fresh notice to respondent No.2 – complainant and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner- Bank/Financial Institution, respondent No.2 – complainant, and other rival claimants, if any, shall pass a reasoned order afresh in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0