Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Shaban Ali Transport Service – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WPCR No. 162 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Syed Md. Sohail Afzal
For the Respondents: Ramakant Mishra, Shashank Thakur, Pranjal Agrawal, Sameer Rigri
High Courts should not exercise their extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interdict an ongoing criminal investigation, specifically where allegations involve potential financial fraud and disputed factual questions, especially when the petitioner has already exhausted alternative statutory remedies in lower courts.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Interference in ongoing investigation - Allegations of financial fraud involving multi-channel banking transactions - Whether the dispute is purely civil or criminal nature - Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction - Investigating agency requires adequate latitude to inquire into the matter - Premature interference would impede investigation - (Paras 26, 27, 28, 29, 33).
(B) Writ petition - Alternative remedy - Petitioner already exhausted remedies before Chief Judicial Magistrate and Revisional Court regarding freezing of bank accounts - Invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction after failure in lower forums is not maintainable - (Paras 36, 37).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a coal transport businessman, sought the quashing of cyber crime complaints lodged by the respondent against him, alleging these were civil disputes over non-payment and order cancellations given a criminal color. The petitioner’s bank accounts were placed under lien/debit hold by police authorities during the preliminary inquiry. The petitioner challenged this as arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations involved potential fraud, misappropriation, and manipulation of invoices, which transcend simple contractual disputes. It held that the ongoing investigation must proceed without judicial interdiction and that the freezing of accounts was a common precautionary measure during the inquiry.
Issues: Whether the court should quash the ongoing cyber crime inquiry and whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts was illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where allegations disclose potential elements of fraud involving financial transactions, investigative agencies must be allowed to conduct inquiries without interference from the High Court; issues involving disputed facts or active investigations are not suitable for determination under Article 226 when alternative efficacious remedies have been exhausted.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the commercial dispute and cyber crime complaints. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. petitioner's argument on civil nature of the dispute and illegality of bank account freezing. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. respondents' arguments justifying the investigation and legality of procedure. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. court's reasoning against interfering with investigations and status of factual disputes. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| For Petitioner | Mr. Syed Md. Sohail Afzal, Advocate |
| For Union of India | Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI |
| For State | Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General |
| For Respondent No.5 | Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate |
| For Respondent No.7 | Mr. Sameer Rigri, Advocate |
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
20.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Syed Mohammad Sohail Afzal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India/respondent No.1, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.2 to 4, Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 as well as Mr. Sameer Rigri, learaned counsel appearing for respondent No.7.
2. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the Cyber Crime Complaint Acknowledgement Nos. 33307250020284 and 33307250020280 dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal under the administrative control of respondent No.1 at the instance of respondent No.7, as well as all consequential coercive actions arising therefrom, including the communication issued by respondent No.3 pursuant to which lien/debit hold has been marked on the petitioner’s bank accounts by respondents No.5 and 6, and the initiation of enquiry proceedings requiring the petitioner to appear before the Cyber Crime Unit, Bilaspur. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-
“10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Cyber Acknowledgement Complaint Crime Nos. 33307250020284 and 33307250020280 dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal at the instance of Respondent No.7.
10.2 Issue an appropriate writ directing Respondent No.3 to withdraw/recall the communication issued to Respondent Nos.5 and 6 pursuant to which lien/debit hold has been marked on the petitioner's bank accounts.
10.3 Issue an appropriate writ directing Respondent Nos.5 and 6 to immediately remove the lien/debit hold marked on the petitioner's bank accounts and permit normal banking operations.
10.4 Issue an appropriate writ restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned cyber complaint acknowledgements.
10.5 Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”
3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is a lawful businessman engaged in the business of coal trading and transportation and, in the ordinary course of such business, maintains and operates bank accounts with respondent Nos.5 and 6 for facilitating his commercial transactions. On the instructions of respondent No.7, the petitioner generated tax invoices dated 22.07.2025 in favour of M/s Shree Tathagata Traders for supply of coal of specified quantities and value. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.7 made part payments on 22.07.2025 and 23.07.2025, which stand duly reflected in the bank statements of the petitioner.
4. Thereafter, respondent No.7 requested the petitioner to dispatch the coal despite not having cleared the entire outstanding amount, which was contrary to the express terms and conditions of the invoices stipulating that dispatch would be effected only upon recei
