IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3796 of 2010()
1. JUSHINA.K.P., D/O. HUSSAIN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :24/09/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 3796 OF 2010
===========================
Dated this the 24th day of September,2010
ORDER
By Annexure F communication Manager,
Nilambur Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd intimated
petitioner that Circle Inspector of Police,
Wandoor had temporarily restrained the
operation of transactions in respect of the
fixed deposit receipt Nos.3568, 3569, 3570,
3571 and 3572 in the name of the petitioner, in
Crime No.117/2010 of Kalikavu Police Station.
Petitioner on receipt of Annexure F
communication sent Annexure G notice seeking
the Circle Inspector to lift the restriction
imposed on operating the account. As no action
was taken, this petition is filed under section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct
the respondents not to initiate any proceedings
in respect of Fixed Deposit receipts in the
Crl.M.C.3796/2010 2
name of the petitioner and to allow her to withdraw
the amount.
2. Crime No.117/2010 of Kalikavu Police Station
was registered based on Annexure A complaint filed
by the husband of the petitioner before Judicial
First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Manjeri and sent
for investigation under section 156(3) of Code of
Criminal Procedure alleging that the accused in
that case committed offences under sections 406,
452 and 380 read with section 34 of Indian Penal
Code. Petitioner is not implicated as an accused
in Annexure A complaint. The allegation in
Annexure A complaint with regard to the fixed
deposit receipts in the name of the petitioner is
that petitioner had kept the Fixed Deposit receipts
for Rs. 5 lakhs namely five receipts as well as
the insurance bond for Rs.1 lakh obtained by the
complainant in the name of his wife and kept in the
brief-case which was allegedly stolen in the
absence of the petitioner on 24.4.2010 at about 10
a.m by the accused therein. The allegations in
Crl.M.C.3796/2010 3
Annexure A itself shows that the Fixed Deposit
receipts are in the name of the petitioner. When
petitioner is not an accused and she is the
depositor as per the Fixed Deposit receipts, the
Circle Inspector of Police is not entitled to
restrain the operation of the said account as has
been done by him. If the case of the husband of
the petitioner is that those deposits were made by
him in the name of his wife and the wife has no
right over the same, it is up to him to approach
the civil court to establish his right.
Petition is allowed. Circle Inspector of
Police, Kalikavu Police Station is directed not to
restrain the second respondent from permitting the
petitioner to operate the fixed deposit receipts
standing in the name of the petitioner.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006