$~117 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1592/2026 and CM APPL. 7763/2026 Date of Decision: 26.02.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

PAY 10 SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv with Mr.

Nakul Batra, Ms. Palak Sehgal, Ms. Aankhi Anwesha, Mr. Akshar Bhatt, Mr. Sukrit Seth, and Mr. Sreedhar Kale, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA AD ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Atul Tanwar, Advocate for R-

1/UOI.

Ms. Anushka Verma and Mr. Rajat Katyal, Advocate for R-3/Yes Bank. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vinodh Kanna B, Ms. Shefali Munde, Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Ms. Thilagavathi P, Advocates for R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The Court is called upon to decide whether the instant writ petition, challenging action purportedly taken under Sections 94 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ‘the BNSS’), and Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter the ‘IT Act’), would be amenable to be challenged in a Writ Petition (Civil) or a Writ Petition (Criminal).

2. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.4-Tamil Nadu Police, while placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of N. Prakash vs. Manoj Kumar and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 1149, argues that the writ petition should have been registered as ‘W.P. (Criminal)’ since the genesis of the entire dispute lies in a criminal investigation.

3. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned senior counsel who appears for the petitioner, contends otherwise. He submits that the petitioner, essentially, is seeking protection of civil rights which stand infringed on account of the debit- freeze on the petitioner’s account. According to him, the power to freeze bank accounts emanates from Section 107 of the BNSS and not from Section 106 of BNSS. According to him, Section 107 of the BNSS deals with the attachment and forfeiture and restoration of property, and is not a criminal/penal provision. He asserts that the powers of forfeiture under the said provision are essentially civil in nature. The regime under Section 107 of the BNSS may be compared to the regime of attachment, confiscation and restoration under Sections 5 and 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter ‘the PMLA’).

Reliance, in this regard, is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary vs. Union of India., 2023 12 SCC 1 It is submitted that the Court, in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary, recognized that attachment is a civil proceedings. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Biswanath Bhattacharya vs. Union of India and Ors., (2014) 4 SCC 392 to argue that non-conviction based civil forfeiture regime are not ‘penalties’ within the meaning of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. The decision in the case of West Bengal vs. S. K. Ghosh, (1962) SCC OnLine SC 53, has also been pressed into service to argue that non conviction based forfeiture is not ‘penalty’ and is, in fact, a speedier procedure for recovery of money, which is civil in nature.

4. It is also submitted that this Court is consistently following the practice of entertaining writ petitions against unlawful freezing action in a civil writ petition. Reference is made to Malabar Gold, Pawan Kumar Rai vs. Union of India and Another,, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8936 and Neelkanth Pharma Logistics (P) Ltd. v. Union of India,, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1055. The practice being followed by other High Courts to entertain writ petitions on civil side against similar actions has been pointed out. Decisions in the case of Dr. Sajeer vs. Reserve Bank of India Represented by its Governor of RBI and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 9087, Nazeer K.T. vs. Manager, Federal Bank and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 4614, Mohammed Saifullah vs. Reserve Bank of India, Re