Judicial orders passed by a criminal court of competent jurisdiction are not amenable to challenge under writ jurisdiction. Writ proceedings cannot be invoked as a substitute for established appellate or revisional remedies, regardless of alleged territorial consequences or procedural errors.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Lalsawirema, respondent No. 1 appearing in person, and Mr. M. Smith, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

2] This intra-court appeal is directed against the interim order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(Crl.) No. 9/2025, whereby operation of the order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in Criminal Case No. 15/2025 came to be stayed.

3] The appellant, who was respondent No. 5 in the writ proceedings, is aggrieved by the said interim order and contends that the writ petition itself was constitutionally incompetent, the challenge therein being directed against a judicial order passed by a criminal court situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

4] The facts giving rise to the present proceedings, shorn of unnecessary detail, are as follows:

The appellant claims to be a victim of an online financial fraud of considerable magnitude. According to the appellant, he was induced through certain online platforms and WhatsApp groups purporting to be associated with investment and stock trading activities, pursuant whereto various sums aggregating to approximately Rs.5.34 crores were transferred to multiple bank accounts on the representation that such transfers were towards legitimate investment transactions. Upon subsequently suspecting that the entire arrangement was fraudulent, the appellant approached the competent cyber crime authorities in the State of Tamil Nadu. An FIR came to be registered as FIR No. 15/2025 under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with applicable provisions of the Information Technology Act, and investigation was commenced by the State Cyber Crime Investigation authorities at Chennai.

5] During the course of investigation, the investigating agency claims to have traced portions of the allegedly defrauded funds through various banking channels. According to the appellant, one such money trail led to the bank account maintained by respondent No. 1 with HDFC Bank, Kolasib Branch, Mizoram.

6] It appears that acting in connection with the said investigation, the account in question came to be frozen. Thereafter, proceedings were placed before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in connection with the said criminal case. By order dated 03.03.2025 passed in the said proceedings, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed defreezing of the said account and further directed transfer of an amount of Rs.27,90,009/- lying therein to the appellant’s bank account. Another sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from a separate account appears also to have been directed to be transferred, which, according to the appellant, was in fact acted upon.

7] Respondent No. 1, whose account at Kolasib was the subject matter of the aforesaid order, disputes the legality of the said judicial direction. His case is that he was never afforded notice or opportunity of hearing before the order dated 03.03.2025 came to be passed; that the account in question was not reflected in the original FIR; and that deprivation of the funds standing to his credit without notice amounted to violation of principles of natural justice and infringement of his constitutional rights.

8] The record further reveals that respondent No. 1 also instituted civil proceedings before the competent civil court at Kolasib in relation to the said bank account, in which an interim order directing maintenance of status quo came to be passed restraining disposal of the amount pending consideration of the interlocutory proceedings. Certain other proceedings also appear to have been initiated touching the freezing of the account and actions of the bank authorities. However, those proceedings do not directly arise for adjudication in the present appeal except to the limited extent of background facts.

9] Be that as it may, respon