Pacnet Services (India) Pvt. v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.04.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.30035 of 2012 and M.P.No.2 of 2012 PacNet Services (India) Private Ltd.

No.6, Karim Chamber, 40 A.d.Marg Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Rep. by its Director Robert Paul Davis.

..

Petitioner vs

1. The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch - III Chennai Suburban Police St. Thomas Mount, Chennai - 16.

2. The Manager, Royal Bank of Scotland No.1, Harington Road Chetpet, Chennai - 600 031.

3. The Manager Royal Bank of Scotland 101/104, Tulsiani Chambers Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021.

..

Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned memo dated 05.05.2011 issued by the first respondent to the second respondent requesting the second respondent to freeze the petitioner's bank account (current account No.1220481, Royal Bank of Scotland, Mumbai) and quash the same and direct the respondents to list the freeze on the said bank account of the petitioner.

For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Manojkumar For Respondents :

Mr.S.Ravichandran Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.T.Suresh for R2 and R3

ORDER

The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the memo dated 05.05.2011 issued by the Central Crime Branch, Chennai based on the request made by the second respondent / Royal Bank of Scotland to freeze the petitioner's bank account (current account No.1220481, Royal Bank of Scotland, Mumbai).

2. The petitioner is PacNet services (India) Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The PacNet services, globally is a payment service company and it assists multinational companies in payments and collections from their clients around the world.

3. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the first respondent Central Crime Branch issued a memo on 05.05.2011 for freezing the petitioner's bank account based on the request made by the second respondent bank. A crime case has been registered against the writ

petitioner company and based on that, certain instructions were issued to freeze the account in the year 2011. The second respondent bank is a private bank and if at all any company transaction, results in initiation of criminal prosecution against the petitioner, the petitioner has to approach the appropriate forum for the purpose of redressal of his grievance.

4. The issued raised for registering the complaint has been resolved by the petitioner and therefore, the relief of freezing the account does not arise at all. However, this Court in a writ proceedings, cannot adjudicate such issues and if at all any grievance exists, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority.

5. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Index : Yes/No 10.04.2023 drm To:

1. The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch - III Chennai Suburban Police St. Thomas Mount, Chennai - 16.

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

drm 10.04.2023