A police officer lacks unilateral authority to freeze bank accounts; such action constitutes an attachment of property requiring prior judicial oversight, notice, and adherence to specific statutory procedures, failing which it violates fundamental rights to trade and livelihood.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned action of the Respondent No 3 in issuing the Impugned Order dt 12 09 2025 directing the Respondent No 4 Bank to freeze the Bank Accounts of the Petitioners as being illegal arbitrary unsustainable in law and quash and set aside the Impugned Order dt 12 09 2025 passed by the Respondent No 3 and consequently direct the Respondent No 4 Bank for immediate defreezing of the Bank Accounts of the Petitioners and Pass such other Order or Orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass…”

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

Sri Prudvi Raju Mudunuri, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 issued under Section 94 of ‘the BNSS’ by Respondent No.3 is wholly arbitrary, mechanical, and devoid of jurisdictional foundation. It is urged that the Investigating Officer, without recording any reasons or establishing a nexus between the alleged offence and the Petitioners’ accounts, has directed the Respondent Bank to freeze the accounts, thereby paralysing the Petitioners’ business operations.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that freezing of bank accounts constitutes a draconian measure, directly infringing upon the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Such an order, passed without prior approval of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate as mandated under Section 107 of ‘the BNSS’, is ultra vires the statute and violative of the principles of natural justice.

It is submitted that the allegations of misappropriation and diversion of funds are demonstrably false, inasmuch as the accounts of M/s. Murali Krishna Agro Farms & Estates Pvt. Ltd., required joint signatures, including that of the de-facto complainant, thereby rendering unilateral diversion impossible. The findings of the Hon’ble NCLT, which categorically held that the complainant is not a director, further demolish the substratum of the criminal complaint. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned order is bereft of particulars, merely reciting that the accounts are “involved in the offence” without disclosing material particulars or quantifying the alleged misappropriation. Such blanket directions, unsupported by evidence, have been consistently deprecated by constitutional Courts as impermissible in law.

It is further urged that the continuation of the freeze has resulted in grave prejudice to the Petitioners, with loan accounts being classified as NPAs, statutory payments being obstructed, and salaries of employees remaining unpaid. The livelihood of the Petitioners and their employees stands imperilled, and such disproportionate hardship inflicted without lawful authority amounts to violation of the right to livelihood and commercial existence.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners furthermore submits that criminal law cannot be permitted to be misused as a weapon to settle civil or corporate disputes. The complainant, having failed before the NCLT, has sought to misuse the criminal process to paralyse the Petitioners’ business. This Court has consistently held that such abuse of process warrants judicial intervention to prevent miscarriage of justice. It is contended that the Respondent Bank cannot legally freeze accounts merely on the basis of a police communication without a formal attachment order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 107 of ‘the BNSS’. The procedural lapses committed by Respondent No.3 vitiate the entire process, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners prays to set a