The court emphasized that the mere purchase of goods from an accused firm does not automatically render the purchaser guilty of any offence, and freezing someone's bank accounts during an investigation violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners have approached this Court with a grievance that the petitioners are being harassed in the name of investigation in relation to FIR No.524 dated 07.07.2022, registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar (Bhilwara), District Bhilwara, which has been registered against Harsh and Vinod, partners of M/s Shyam Textiles.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced documents on record evincing that they have purchased certain goods from M/s Shyam Textiles, partnership firm of said accused persons (Vinod and Harsh).

3. It is stated that these goods were purchased under duly issued GST bills and payments' have been made through bank, which facts are evident from tax invoices and bank accounts (page No.29-80) of the paper book.

4. Learned counsel has raised a serious concern that petitioners' bank accounts have also been frozen by the Investigating Officer, without any authority.

5. While maintaining that the petitioners are not involved in any sort of offence, learned counsel argues that the petitioners cannot be enroped in such process and their bank accounts cannot be frozen, even if the firm M/s Shyam Textiles and its partners have cheated the complainant.

6. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submits that the Investigating Officer has concrete information that the petitioners are accomplices of Harsh and Vinod and they have divided/shared the receipts of the illegally procured cloth.

7. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned Public Prosecutor submits that if the petitioners join the Investigation, the Investigating Officer will complete his investigation and not take any coercive measures against them, until they are found guilty of the offence.

8. While highlighting that the said Vinod and Harsh had intention to cheat the complainant since inception as required under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, he argues that these persons are liable to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. It is argued that the Investigating Officer has wide power under Section 102 of the Code even to freeze the bank account.

10. It is also asserted by Mr. Singh that upon perusal of petitioners' bank accounts, it was found that there are numerous transactions and money has been collected in their accounts.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties for the purpose of interim relief.

12. In the opinion of this Court, the mere fact that the petitioners have purchased the goods from M/s Shyam Textile, cannot ipso-facto render the petitioners guilty for the offence of cheating or even as abbeter to be prosecuted under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are purchasers of the goods which was secured by the main accused, maybe by cheating.

13. The Investigating Officer is proceeding on the information and assumption. So far no concrete information of petitioners' role in the purported offence is available with the Investigating Officer.

14. It is a settled position of law that the police cannot engage into a fishing expedition in the name of investigation.

15. This Court is of the prima-facie view that on the basis of material so far collected, the Investigating Officer cannot proceed against the petitioners.

16. More so, freezing someone's bank accounts during such expedition violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Powers to seize bank accounts is not given anywhere in the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- the provisions under Section 102 of the Code, which has been strongly relied upon by Mr. Gaurav Singh, is not applicable in the case like the one in hands.

17. It will not be out of place to reproduce provision under Section 102 of the Code which reads thus:

"102. Power of police officer to seize certain property.

(1) Any police officer, may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion