The court emphasized that allegations of fraud must be substantiated in a Trial Court, preserving the procedural integrity while allowing the petitioners to seek relief through appropriate legal channels.

ORDER :

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

Heard Mr C.Shanmukha Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Ms L.Pranathi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr M.P.Kashyap, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, Mr Thomas Joseph Lloyd, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondents 5 and 6.

2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking prayer as under:

“to issue an order or direction in the nature of writ, more particular in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents in continuing to freeze Petitioner No.1’s account and directing the Respondent No. 3 Bank to de-freeze account No. 50200016545880 of 1^st petitioner, pending further investigation by the Respondent No. 5 & 6.”

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as under:

a) The 1^st Petitioner Firm is doing business of supply of steel strap, strapping seals CR Sheets, C-30 guards with the 4^th respondent company and other companies which are subsidiary of the 4^th respondent company and other companies. The business transaction between 4^th respondent and the 1^st petitioner is also that of supply of goods i.e. exchange of their goods as per their requirement and necessity on payment of goods consideration. On this process the 1^st petitioner firm had debt with the 4^th respondent company and the 4^th respondent also had debts with other companies among them one is Sunray Metallurgical Ltd..

b) Thereafter, a letter was addressed by the representative of the 4^th respondent firm to the 1^st petitioner to clear the debts with Sunray Metallurgical Ltd Company and subsequently one representative of the 4^th respondent had approached to petitioner No.1 firm with a letter addressed that petitioner No.1 firm had to clear their debts with Sunray Mettalurgical Ltd. Company on their instruction the 2^nd petitioner had cleared the 4^th respondent company debts through petitioner No.1 firm account for an amount of Rs.80,22,711/- .

c) Subsequently, the 6^th respondent without proper enquiry has registered a crime No. 539 of 2022 dated 25.08.2022 including the petitioner firm, as accused No.6 for the mischief/cheating and other acts done by the employee of the 4^th respondent which is nowhere concerned and not connected with petitioner No.1 firm. Thereafter, the 5^th respondent has issued notice dated 25.11.2022 to freeze the account of the 1^st petitioner with the 3^rd respondent bank vide A/c No.5020016545880 through letters. The 5^th respondent has also issued further notices to the 1^st petitioner dated 21.11.2022, 22.12.2022 & 17.03.2023 and the petitioner has replied to all the notices along with the documentary evidences. However, the 5^th respondent has again issued notices dated 24.04.2023 and 29.04.2023.

d) Thereafter, as the result of notice issued by the 5^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent bank has frozen the account of the 1^st petitioner firm and the same was intimated to the petitioner through letter dated 25.11.2022. However, even upon proper investigation by the respondent No. 3 & 5, the 5^th respondent is not sending letter to the 3^rd respondent to defreeze the 1^st petitioner firm’s account as it is no more required.

e) Moreover, all the business transactions between the 4^th respondent and the 1^st petitioner firm are also cleared and this clearly establishes the false allegations levelled against the peti