TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State. 4. On the complaint filed by one S. Praveen Kumar, the police, Cyber Crime Police Station, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, have registered a case in Crime No.1432 of 2020 against the accused therein including Mr. Neeraj Kumar Tuli (accused No.4), Director of the petitioner herein, who is also a Director in M/s. Dockpay Technology Private Limited for the offences under Sections - 420 and 120B of IPC and Section - 3 (1) (i) of the Telangana State Gaming (Amendment) Act, 2017, Sections - 4 and 5 (a to f) and 6 (1) (2) of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer freezed the bank account of the petitioner viz., A/c No.120-160-684-001 with IFSC Code HSBC0400012, AD Code -6500131 291009 maintained with Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited having its Branch Office at Institutional Plot No.68, Sector- 44, Gurugram -122002. 5. The petitioner herein has filed an application under Section - 451 of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P. No.645 of 2020 in Crime No.1432 of 2020 to defreeze the said account. The petitioner herein has specifically contended that it cam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Investigating Officer without considering the said aspects and also the aspect that Mr. Neeraj Kumar Tuli has not been authorized on behalf of the petitioner company to deal with the affairs of the petitioner company in any manner, freezed the account of the petitioner company illegally without following due procedure laid down under law. 10. Due to freezing of the account of the petitioner company, the petitioner has continuously been creating the business losses, without any foul or involvement in the offences under investigation. It has a very good track record and has never been implicated in any offence. 11. With the said contentions, the petitioner sought to defreeze its account. 12. Respondent - police has filed counter opposing the said application stating that during the course of investigation in Crime No.1432 of 2020, the Investigating Officer came to know that website is hosted out of India jurisdiction i.e. Cloudfare, USA, and he has collected the details and amounts went to CASHFREE, PAYTM (Paytm gateways, money routed to LINKYUN & DOCKPAY) and few directly went to LINKYUN & DOCKPAY Wallets / accounts. Hence, served notice to the Nodal of the cash free dispu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove said companies including DOKYPAY, and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Tuli is only a Director of the petitioner company and he is having one share and he is nothing to do with the day-to-day affairs and financial transactions of the petitioner. According to him, Crores of rupees are available in the said account of the petitioner company. In proof of the same, he has filed statement of account of the petitioner's company. The petitioner will co-operate with the Investigating Officer by furnishing information and documents as sought by him during the course of investigation. 17. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner company has already submitted a reply to the notice dated 16.11.2020 issued by the Investigating Officer in Crime NO.1432 of 2020 under Sections - 91 and 160 of Cr.P.C. narrating the entire facts and also the fact that the petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged offences mentioned above. According to him, the Court below dismissed the petition erroneously and the impugned order is not a reasoned order. Due to freezing of the account, the operations of Petitioner Company came to stand still and it is not in a position to continue its transactions and not in a posit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esponsible person with proper authorization to the Investigating Officer in Crime No.1432 of 2020 for the purpose of cooperating with the Investigating Officer by furnishing information and documents as sought by him in concluding the investigation. In the written instructions, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the authorized signatory of the petitioner company i.e., Mr. Divas Sharma has appeared before the Investigating Officer on 05.03.2021, and a notice under Sections - 91 and 160 of Cr.P.C. was served on him and he has submitted his reply on 12.03.2021. It is also further stated that the respondent has opposed for defreezing the account on the ground that no-one from the company appeared before the Investigating Officer despite service of multiple notices. Thus, as per the reply, it is found that multiple purchase orders were mentioned which belongs to Indian Companies across India. The credentials of all the said companies need to be verified. However, it is stated in the written instructions that the Investigating Officer has completed investigation and filed charge sheet, vide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocuments as sought by him. Thus, the Investigating Officer has completed investigation and filed charge sheet. But, the learned Public Prosecutor did not file copy of the said charge sheet in the present criminal petition. Considering the said aspects, according to this Court, no useful purpose would be served in continuation of freezing of account of the petitioner company. According to this Court, the relief sought by the petitioner in defreezement of its account can be considered on imposition of certain conditions. 24. As discussed supra, neither the Investigating Officer, nor the petitioner filed any document to show the amount that was transferred to the account of the petitioner which was freezed. The learned Public Prosecutor during the course of arguments submitted that an amount of Rs. 16.00 Crores was transferred to the account of the petitioner. But, he did not file any document in proof of the same. In the written instruments also, there is no mention about the same. The police filed two counters before the Court below. Even in the said two counters, nothing is mentioned about the same and the details of the amount transferred into the account of the petitioner which ....