Freezing of bank accounts without reporting to the Magistrate is illegal; mandatory procedures under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be strictly followed.

Order

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

The present misc. petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S/482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by learned District Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Case No. 20/2025 whereby, the learned Judge dismissed the revision and affirmed the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand dismissing the application filed by the petitioners against de-freezing their Bank accounts in connection with FIR No. 147/2024 registered at Police station Rajnagar, District Rajsamand.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant Pushkar Patidar has lodged an FIR No. 147/2024 against the main accused Hukam Singh and other persons including the present petitioners for offence under Sections 420 , 406, 381, 120-B IPC. During investigation, the police freezed the Bank accounts of the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand who dismissed the said application vide order dated 23.01.2025. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, which too came to be dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the primary allegation of embezzlement pertains exclusively to the main accused, Hukam Singh, and Bhim Singh. It is noteworthy that the bank account of Hukam Singh has already been frozen; however, the present petitioners, who are the wife and sons of Hukam Singh, are not alleged to have committed any act of embezzlement. Counsel further contends that the investigating agency has indiscriminately frozen the petitioners’ bank accounts and halted all transactions therein, despite the absence of any direct nexus with the alleged offence. Such action, he argues, is arbitrary and unlawful. It is also argued that the petitioners are duly registered Income Tax payers, and all their transactions are transparent and accountable. Consequently, the freezing of their entire bank accounts amounts to an unjust deprivation of their right to carry on lawful business activities. Additionally, even if the powers under Section 102 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE are assumed to be applicable, the freezing of the petitioners’ bank accounts is illegal for want of compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 102 (3) of the Cr.P.C., which stipulates that such action must be reported to the concerned Magistrate. Learned counsel emphasizes that investigating authorities cannot circumvent the procedural safeguards prescribed under criminal law. Therefore, he submits that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed, and a direction be issued to the bank to permit the petitioners to operate their bank accounts freely. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Muktaben M. Mashru Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors reported in 2019 : DHC 6520 : 2019 Supreme(Del) 2415 and order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shree Radhe Enterprises Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7177/2025) decided on 01.05.2025 Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the authority of the investigating officer to seize an article pursuant to Section 102 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE remains unimpaired, and that even the absence of a formal report to the concerned Magistrate regarding such seizure does not ipso facto invalidate the seizure itself.

4. The investigating officer present in person candidly acknowledged that no inform