Summary
The Court set aside an order de-freezing bank accounts because the accused had withdrawn an earlier application before a Division Bench seeking virtually the same relief and then obtained it from a Single Judge without apprising that judge of the earlier withdrawal. This was a manifest abuse of process. Whether the MPID Act excluded freezing under Section 102 CrPC was expressly left open.
Issues
- Whether a fresh Section 482 application could obtain relief already given up before a Division Bench.
- Whether the interaction of the MPID Act and Section 102 CrPC required determination.
Held
- The earlier application expressly sought de-freezing along with other relief and was withdrawn with liberty only to seek discharge if a charge-sheet was filed. Repeating the de-freezing request before a Single Judge shortly afterwards, without disclosure of the earlier withdrawal, was a manifest abuse of process. (¶¶ 7–8, 12)
- The Single Judge ought not to have entertained the repeated relief. On this ground the order was set aside and the later criminal application dismissed. (¶¶ 12, 14)
- The statutory question whether MPID Act procedures and overriding effect displaced bank-account freezing under Section 102 CrPC was unnecessary to decide and was expressly kept open. (¶¶ 9, 11, 13)
Result
State’s appeal allowed; Single Judge’s order of 18 August 2016 set aside and Criminal Application 459 of 2016 dismissed; statutory interaction question left open.