An investigating agency cannot debit freeze a bank account without a Magistrate's order, as per Section 106 of the Banking Regulation Act.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for defreezing the bank account of the petitioner lying with the HDFC Bank, Maniktala Brach being current account No. 50200012520175.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the bank has freezed the account of the petitioner and when the petitioner enquired the same, the bank has forwarded the letter dated 6^th January, 2025 wherein, the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar Police Station, Papumpare, Arunachal Pradesh has directed the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank to freeze the account of the petitioner and in terms of the direction of the Officer-in-Charge of Itanagar Police Station, the bank has freezed the account of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 13^th January, 2025, the petitioner has received a communication from the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX, Itanagar wherein, it is stated that during the investigation of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants, the office of the Assistant Commissioner noticed that the said firm has passed the Input Tax Credit (ITC) in the account of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,83,934/-. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner has immediately sent a reply to the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX informing the petitioner is no way connected with the M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants and he has no transaction with the said firm. After sending the said reply to the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner has also reverted the amount of Rs. 1,83,934/- back in the account of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way connected with the M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants but the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar Police Station without any authority directed the bank to freeze the account of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner is facing difficulties to run his business.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the unreported judgment in the case of Mukesh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed by the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench and submits that in the said case, the Hon’ble Court has defreezed the amount of the petitioner by keeping the disputed amount aside.

5. Learned counsel for the bank submits that the petitioner is having he current account but the bank has received an instruction from the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar Police Station with regard to the investigation of the case against one, M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants wherein, the bank has been instructed to freeze the account of the petitioner and accordingly on the instruction of the investigating agency, the bank has freezed the account of the petitioner. He further submits that the bank has not received any further instruction from the investigating agency to defreeze the account of the petitioner.

6. This Court finds that the bank has freezed the account of the petitioner on the instruction of the Officer-in- Charge, Itanagar Police Station. The petitioner has made the police authorities as respondent in the present writ application. On 1^st December, 2025 this Court has taken the matter for hearing and this Court finds that the respondent Nos. 3 and 6 have not appeared before this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to issue notice upon the respondent Nos. 3 and 6. In compliance with the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has served fresh notice upon the respondent Nos. 3 and 6 but in spite of service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 6. The affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record.

7. The bank has freezed the account of the petitioner on the instruction of the Officer-in-Charge, Itanag