ORDER : 

1. This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith de-freeze the petitioner's Account bearing A/c. No. 5750000016614 maintained by the petitioner with the 3^rd respondent Bank, which was frozen at the instance of the 2^nd respondent pursuant to the registration of complaint in C.No.37/CCB/COP/Visitors/2025 and NCRP.No.32901250002138.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner viz. M/s.V-Mart Retail Limited is a publicly listed company engaged in the business of value fashion retail and FMCG Goods, operating more than 400 stores across India. It is a registered under the Companies Act. The company for his business purpose was having bank account with the 3^rd respondent Bank in A/c. No. 5750000016614 and exclusively maintained for the purpose of collecting customer payments via UPI and Card transaction. On 06.05.2025, the 3^rd respondent Bank had imposed a complete “debit freeze” on the petitioner's bank account since the 2^nd respondent registered a case in C.No.37/CCB/COP/Visitors/2025 and NCRP No. 32901250002138. This account is an non-operational pass-through account used solely for inward remittances from retail customers and it is not used for third party transactions or disbursements. The collected funds are routed to the petitioner's primary operating account to facilitate payments to vendors and other stakeholders. Thus, freezing the petitioner's bank account creates a direct and severe impact on the petitioner's ability to conduct daily business operation. The freezing of the account was carried out without prior notice informing the nature of the complaint and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, thereby, the 2^nd respondent violated the Principles of Natural Justice under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India.

3. She further submitted that the petitioner had sent a detailed representation on 07.05.2025 to the 2^nd respondent offering full cooperation and requesting revocation of freezed account. It was informed through telephone that an amount of Rs.4,194/- is disputed which was transacted in the petitioner's account. The petitioner following-up with repeated representations, in person had visited the office of the 2^nd respondent on 02.06.2025, 06.06.2025 & 01.07.2025 and also sent representation by registered post and Email to both the respondents 2 and 3. Despite all efforts, the respondents failed to provide any meaningful answer and without legal justification, had freezed the account of the petitioner which is in gross violation of Section 106 of BNSS which mandates judicial oversight and procedure safeguards prior to imposing such intrusive measures. The failure to comply with the statutory due process renders the freeze illegal, ultra vires and unsustainable in law. Freezing of account requires written reasons be recorded showing necessity, judicial authorization to be obtained and only the proportionate amount suspected of being tainted may be subject to restrictions. On the other hand, the 2^nd respondent directed a blanket freezing of entire amount, thereby renders the action void ab initio and a gross abuse of authority.

4. She further submitted that the explanation for the disputed sum being traced to the petitioner's account is that a customer forming a remote part of a transactional chain of alleged fraudulent funds may have made a legitimate purchase at one of the petitioner's outlets. On 05.08.2025, a detailed request was sent to the 3^rd respondent Bank to provide list of complainants, in relation to petitioner's bank account along with total fraudulent transaction amount and disputed amount. Despite multiple reminders, the 3^rd respondent Bank failed to provide requested datas so far. By freezing account, the respondents paralysed the petitioner's operations. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions.

● In Arun v. The Additional Director General of Police