Prem Narayan Prasad v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16233 of 2017 ====================================================== Prem Narayan Prasad P.O. and P.S. Buniyadganj, Gaya- 823003. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union Of India and Ors 2.

Dy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Patna Zone, Bank Road Chandrapura Palace, West Gandhi Maidan, 3.

Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Patna Zone, Bank Road Chandrapura Palace, West Gandhi 4.

The Branch Head, ICICI, Fatehpuri Branch, 211, Fatehpuri, Near Kaliboli Chowk, New Delhi- 110006.

5.

Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Patna Zone, Chanakyam Place, R. Block, Patna 800001.

6.

Authorised Officer, Bank of India Zonal Office, Patna Zone, Chanakyam Place, R. Block, Patna 800001 7.

Branch Manager, Bank of India, G.B. Road, Branch, Gaya, 823001. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the U.O.I.

:

Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, Sr. Advocate(ASGI) Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh (ED) Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh (J.C.) For the B.O.I.

:

Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, Advocate Mr. Vishesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S.D Sanjay Addl. Soc. Gen.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 14-07-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner, though learned counsel for the respondents are present.

2. The present application has been preferred for the following relief(s):- That the present application is for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs,order/orders,/direction/directi ons towards quashing Annexure 9 and 10 of the petition Petitioner was running

Patna High Court CWJC No.16233 of 2017(3) dt.14-07-2025 2/3 his business of Power Loom. Petitioner is having account in Bank of India the Loan was granted. For procuring CC limit or loan it is an usual practice of the Banks to keeps blank cheques of their customers. It is those cheques which has been misutilised by the banks and heavy transaction was made heavy amount was misappropriated by depositing amount and transferred the same to other Banks.

a notice was issued on 17.03.2017 by Registrar/Administrative Officer, Adjudicating authority (PMLA), New Delhi. petitioner was informed by respondent I regarding heavy transaction with various customers through I.C.I.C.I Bank Fatehpuri, Delhi.

petitioner served legal notice through Bank regarding fraudulent transaction.

the petitioner was served O.A dated 23.3.2017. It has also been alleged that the cash was deposited and was subsequently transferred.. total amount is very huge which has been misappropriated through petitioner's Bank this is more than Crores. The Cash was deposited in petitioner's account and was transferred by some Mr Moti Lal with connivance with the staff of petitioner's Bank, i.e Bank of India, Gaya In entire transaction petitioner was not have any hand or say and was not having any knowledge also. it is pertinent to express that no FIR has been lodged till date on the petitioner but at the same time four officers of the Bank has been dismissed. Petitioner's bank account has been attached since February 2017 and yet has not been

Patna High Court CWJC No.16233 of 2017(3) dt.14-07-2025 3/3 made operative. The adjudicating authority passed an order that attachment of Bank Account in exercise of power u/s 102 of Cr.P.C. r/w 65 of the PMLA should not continue for an indefinite period of time. After this order petitioner received fresh notice for attachment of account which is fit to be quashed. Petitioner filed a complaint before the police Station Gaya on 27.03.2017 but the same was accepted as sanah, petitioner again filed complain on 2.4.17 but no action was taken thus petitioner moved before the Superintendent of Police Gaya till date no action has been taken. The Authorized officer has issued notice for taking possession of the property when only in last month petitioner has deposited twelve lacks of Rupees against Loan. That Annexure 9 and 10 is fit to be quashed.

3. Since there is no appearance, dismissed for nonprosecution. (Rajiv Roy, J) Sudhanshu/- U T