WP/24436/2026 of SMT. SAROJINI Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 7 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “a) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to de-freeze the FD Accounts maintained at 4th Respondent/Shriram City Union Finance Limited and 5th Respondent/State Bank of India, belonging to the Petitioner, as fully described in SCHEDULE 'A' & 'B' herein, in favour of the Petitioner/Applicant herein; or alternatively,

b) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 21.07.2026 in CC No. 11449/2021 pending on the file of Learned 1st PACJM, Bengaluru in so far as it rejects the application filed by the petitioner/applicant under Sec. 451 read with 457 of CrPC (produced vide Annexure 'N); and consequently, allow the application filed by the petitioner/applicant under Sec. 451 read with 457 of CrPC (produced vide Annexure K) in the interest of justice; and

c) Pass such other order(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, to secure the ends of justice.”

2. Heard Smt. Keerthi Reddy, learned counsel along with Sri Vinay V., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

HC-KAR

A complaint comes to be registered on 05.10.2018, against petitioner along with others, which becomes a crime in Crime No.217/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The investigation ensued after registration of the complaint. The petitioner is said to have obtained a decree of divorce in M.C.No.2198/2019, severing her matrimonial relationship with accused No.1, the principal accused. The investigation was transferred to the hands of the Central Crime Branch, Anti- Narcotic Wing and thereafter, the investigation is said to have continued. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has addressed communications to several banking and non-banking institutions, directing freezement of the accounts belonging to the petitioner as obtaining under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the said directions of the Investigating Officer, petitioner's fixed deposit accounts maintained with the Shriram City Union Finance Limited and State Bank of India were frozen. However, the Investigating Officer did not report the said direction issued by him to freeze the accounts of the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate as mandated

HC-KAR

under Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer files a final report. The final report completely exonerated the petitioner and the petitioner was dropped from the array of accused, as there was no material available to establish her involvement in the alleged offences.

4. Notwithstanding the fact that the name of the petitioner is dropped from the array of accused in the final report, filed pursuant to the registration of the crime in Crime No.217/2018, the Investigating Officer did not initiate any steps to get the accounts defreeze. The petitioner then files an application before the concerned Court under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., which comes to be rejected by the concerned Court, on the score that the petitioner had not produced the documents that established her financial capacity of the fixed deposits being made. This order of rejection was challenged before the Court at Sessions by filing a revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.361/2021. The Sessions Judge also dismissed the Crl.R.P.No.361/2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court in Crl.P.No.3310/2022.

HC-KAR

This Court disposed the said criminal petition granting liberty the petitioner to file a fresh application on 30.05.2024 along with her income tax returns demonstrating her independent source of income. Pursuant to the liberty so granted, the petitioner files a fresh application on 03.07.2024 along with her income tax returns demonstrating her independent source of income.

5. Upon completion of further investigation, a supplementary final report is filed, again not implicating the petitioner in the said offences. The concerned Court in terms of its order dated 21.07.2026, dismisses the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., seeking defreezement of fixed deposit accounts. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

6. Smt. Keerthi Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner has been exonerated of the offences as the final report does not indicate the name of the petitioner or the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in the final report on two occasions, one is the final report and another the supplementary final report filed in the

HC-KAR

year 2024. Notwithstanding the same, the concerned Court has twice over rejected the applications, despite producing the entire documents with regard to her independent income for which the fixed deposits were made. Learned counsel would project that today, the position of the petitioner is that, she is suffering from dementia and has no money for her treatment. The only money that she has is, in the fixed deposit accounts. The Investigating Officer, being fully aware of the fact that the petitioner's name is dropped from the array of the accused long ago, has not taken any steps to get the accounts defrozen.

7. Learned High Court Government Pleader would refute the submissions contending that the money does not belong to the petitioner. Therefore, the concerned Court has rightly rejected the applications of the petitioner not once but twice. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

HC-KAR

9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. They are all a matter of record. The petitioner initially been drawn as accused in Crime No.217/2018 is a matter of record. The petitioner securing a decree of divorce from the principal accused, her husband on 27.03.2019 and therefore, the decree of divorce becoming final is again a matter of record. Charge sheet filed by the police after investigation on 19.05.2021 and the petitioner is dropped from the array of accused in C.C.No.11449/2021. The petitioner after dropping of her name from the array of accused in the charge sheet, filed the application seeking an order of defreezement of her fixed deposit accounts which are held at Shriram City Union Finance Limited and State Bank of India. The application comes to be rejected not once, but twice.

10. In the light of the fact that the petitioner has come out blame-free, not once, but twice, once in the final report and the other in the supplementary final report and all these factors would lead to an unmistakably inference is, issuance of a direction to the concerned Investigating Officer to direct

HC-KAR

defreezement of the fixed accounts of the petitioner, for which the impugned order has to be quashed.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

a. The writ petition is allowed.

b. The order dated 21.07.2026, passed by the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, on the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., in C.C.No.11449/2021, stands quashed.

c. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - Investigating Officer is directed to issue a direction to defreeze the fixed accounts of the petitioner held with the Shriram City Union Finance Limited and State Bank of India, without brooking any delay, at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

d. On such direction, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed to defreeze the accounts of the petitioner, forthwith, for its operations. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22