WRIT PETITION ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

 

WRIT PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 READ WITH ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

TO,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Judges of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The present Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia challenging the illegal and arbitrary freezing of the Petitioner’s bank accounts by the Respondent Authorities under Section 102 Cr.P.C., in connection with C.R. No. 27 of 2022, registered with Cyber Police Station, Pune City, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (“MPID Act”).
2. The Petitioner also seeks to challenge the order dated 29th September 2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge (MPID), Pune, in MPID Case No. 841 of 2022, dismissing the Petitioner’s application for release and defreezing of his bank accounts.
   Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit ‘A’ (colly) is a copy of the said application and order dated 29th September 2025.
3. The following accounts of the Petitioner stand illegally frozen:
   a) A.U. Small Finance Bank, Kolkata – A/c No. 221126004368427
   b) UCO Bank, Kolkata – A/c No. 18750210001004 (Current Balance ₹15,39,174/-)
   c) Axis Bank, Kolkata – A/c No. 922030039688065 (Current Balance ₹3,64,875/-)

FACTS OF THE CASE

4. C.R. No. 27 of 2022 came to be registered with Pune City Cyber Police Station on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Ms. Preet Trivedi (hereinafter referred to as “the informant”), alleging that she was induced to invest in cryptocurrency through a website named cryptooinshoping.com, allegedly operated by the Petitioner and other co-accused persons.
5. According to the prosecution, the informant, while exploring avenues for cryptocurrency investment, came in contact with one Mr. Kedar Ranade (Accused No. 2), who represented that the website cryptooinshoping.com was a legitimate platform for trading in cryptocurrencies. Thereafter, the informant contacted the Petitioner (Accused No. 1), following which email communications ensued between the informant and the representatives of the said website.
6. The informant’s case is that in June 2017, she purchased digital coins named “Ediner” worth ₹10,000 and sold them within a few days at a profit. Subsequently, she and her husband allegedly invested ₹1,60,000 on 8th August 2017, and received returns of ₹3,20,000 within 70 days. Between August and October 2017, they invested a total of ₹4,80,000, expecting a return of ₹7,60,000 by 31st December 2017.
7. The investigation in the said crime has been completed and a charge-sheet has been filed before the Learned Sessions Court. The Petitioner has been granted bail vide order dated 9th April 2025 by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.
   A copy of the said bail order is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure “B.”
8. In compliance with the conditions of the said bail order, the Petitioner’s wife voluntarily deposited a sum of ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) before the Trial Court as a gesture of good faith and without prejudice to the Petitioner’s rights and contentions. The said deposit was duly acknowledged by the Court on 24th April 2025.
   A copy of the application dated 24th April 2025, along with Demand Draft No. 6112 dated 16th April 2025 for ₹10,00,000/-, is annexed and marked as Exhibit “C” (colly).
9. The Petitioner states that similar offences based on identical allegations have been registered against him at Kolhapur, Goa, Kolkata, Assam, and Nagpur, and he has been granted bail in all such cases.
10. Pursuant to his release after being granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa vide order reserved on 6th May 2025 and pronounced on 20th June 2025, the Petitioner was released from custody after an incarceration of over three years. It was only thereafter that he learnt that the aforesaid bank accounts had been frozen by the Investigating Agency.
11. The Petitioner was never informed or intimated about the freezing of these accounts, either at the time of action or thereafter, in complete breach of the statutory mandate under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. The said accounts are personal and proprietorship accounts, belonging to his independent business establishment. Importantly, these accounts were opened only in the year 2022, i.e., five years after the alleged incident of 2017. Hence, there is no nexus whatsoever between the alleged offence and these accounts.
12. Despite the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and compliance with bail conditions, the Petitioner’s accounts continue to remain frozen, resulting in severe financial hardship, denial of livelihood, and infringement of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
13. The Petitioner had approached the Learned Designated Court seeking defreezing of the accounts. In reply, the State mechanically contended that the accused persons in the said crime had allegedly defrauded several persons and received large sums in a Kotak Mahindra Bank Account No. 0012291069, which they later diverted elsewhere. A copy of the said reply dated 23rd July 2025 is annexed and marked as Exhibit “D.”
14. The said reply, however, fails to mention or connect the Petitioner’s frozen accounts, including A.U. Small Finance Bank Account No. 221126004368427, with the alleged Kotak Mahindra account. It is conspicuously silent on how these new accounts, opened five years later, could be linked to the alleged crime.
15. On a meaningful perusal of the statements and transaction records, it is evident that the said accounts reflect genuine business transactions pertaining to the Petitioner’s proprietorship concern, Tumi Asbey Boley, which has been engaged in lawful restaurant business since 2013. The transactions are legitimate, routine, and bear no resemblance to any alleged proceeds of crime.
16. The Learned Special Judge, however, misdirected herself in law by invoking Section 4 of the MPID Act, which is wholly inapplicable to the present case. Section 4 applies only where the State Government issues a notification for attachment of properties belonging to a “financial establishment” upon satisfaction of default in repayment of deposits. In the present case, there is no such notification, and the impugned freezing is merely a police action under Section 102 Cr.P.C. Thus, the reliance on Section 4 is patently misconceived.
17. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind, error apparent on the face of the record, and gross illegality, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice. The freezing of accounts is ultra vires, arbitrary, and devoid of any reasonable nexus with the alleged offence.
18. In light of the above facts and circumstances, the Petitioner most respectfully submits that the impugned order dated 29th September 2025 and the consequential freezing of his bank accounts deserve to be quashed and set aside, and the said accounts be directed to be forthwith defrozen, in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play.

 

GROUNDS

 

I.                   The impugned freezing order suffers from patent illegality and non-compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C.

Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. authorizes seizure of property only as an aid to investigation where there exists a reasonable suspicion that such property is either stolen or connected with the commission of an offence. The Investigating Officer is mandatorily required to (i) forthwith report such seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate and (ii) obtain judicial supervision for its continuation.

In the present case, no contemporaneous report of freezing was made to the concerned Magistrate, nor any judicial authorization obtained. The omission to comply with this statutory safeguard is not a mere irregularity but goes to the root of jurisdiction. The freezing, therefore, stands vitiated in law and constitutes a patent error apparent on the face of the record.

 

II.                The freezing order is without jurisdiction and contrary to the object and scope of Section 102 Cr.P.C.

The essential precondition for invoking Section 102 Cr.P.C. is a demonstrable nexus between the property frozen and the alleged offence. Admittedly, the prosecution’s case pertains to transactions of 2017, whereas the impugned accounts were opened only in 2022, five years thereafter. Such accounts can never be said to be the “subject-matter” or “proceeds” of the alleged offence. The Investigating Officer’s action is thus mechanical, speculative, and ultra vires the provision, amounting to an abuse of process and a misuse of investigative power.

 

III.             The purpose of Section 102 Cr.P.C. has already been exhausted.

The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. The continued freezing of the Petitioner’s accounts serves no investigative purpose and converts what was intended as a temporary protective measure into a punitive embargo. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that once the purpose of investigation is over, continuation of seizure/freezing is oppressive and unconstitutional.

 

IV.             The impugned order of the Learned Designated Court discloses a manifest error of law in invoking Section 4 of the MPID Act.

The Learned Judge has erroneously applied Section 4 of the MPID Act, overlooking its limited and specific scope. Section 4 empowers the State Government to attach properties only when—

a.       a financial establishment defaults in repayment of deposits or interest, or acts in a manner suggesting fraudulent intent; and

b.      the Government, upon such satisfaction, issues an ad-interim attachment order published in the Official Gazette;

c.       the said properties then vest in the Competent Authority, who must seek confirmation from the Designated Court after notifying interested parties.

In the present case, no such Government notification, ad-interim attachment, or vesting order exists. The freezing of accounts by the police under Section 102 Cr.P.C. is an entirely different statutory mechanism, independent of and distinct from attachment proceedings under Section 4 MPID Act. The Learned Court’s reliance on the MPID Act therefore reflects complete non-application of mind, resulting in miscarriage of justice.

 

V.                The MPID Act procedure, being special and exhaustive, overrides general law only when validly invoked; in the absence of a Government notification, the Learned Court lacked jurisdiction to apply it.

Under the MPID Act, the power to attach vests exclusively in the State Government, not the police or even the Designated Court acting suo motu. The impugned order proceeds as if an attachment existed, when none was ever initiated. This fundamental misconception of jurisdiction vitiates the order and constitutes a patent legal error warranting interference under Article 226 and Section 482 Cr.P.C.

 

VI.             The failure to establish the Petitioner’s concern named ‘Tumi AsbeyBoley’as a “financial establishment” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act renders the entire approach misconceived.

The Petitioner’s proprietorship concern is a lawful restaurant business employing four persons. It neither accepts deposits nor offers returns or services to “depositors.” Therefore, it does not fall within the definition of a “financial establishment.” The Learned Court’s attempt to treat the Petitioner’s business accounts as assets of a financial establishment is thus wholly without basis and reflects perverse appreciation of law and fact.

 

VII.          The continued freezing of legitimate business accounts amounts to economic strangulation and abuse of process.

The accounts in question are used solely for business and personal purposes. Their freezing has brought the Petitioner’s restaurant operations to a standstill, jeopardizing the livelihood of the Petitioner, his dependents, and his employees. Such excessive interference with the right to trade is arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.

 

VIII.       The impugned order disregards the settled principle that seizure under Section 102 Cr.P.C. must not extend beyond what is necessary for investigation.

No material has been produced to indicate that the funds in these accounts are “proceeds of crime.” The bank statements clearly reflect legitimate business receipts. The continued embargo, therefore, is unsupported by evidence, contrary to the purpose of Section 102, and amounts to abuse of statutory power.

 

IX.             The Learned Court failed to appreciate that the alleged amount in the offence stands already secured.

The total alleged loss is ₹7,60,000/-, whereas ₹10,00,000/- has already been voluntarily deposited before the Trial Court in compliance with bail conditions. The continued freezing of multiple accounts in these circumstances is grossly disproportionate, indicating non-application of judicial mind and manifest arbitrariness.

 

X.                Because the impugned freezing order, having been issued without adherence to statutory safeguards and continued without judicial sanction, constitutes a clear case of abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.

The exercise of power under Section 102 Cr.P.C. must always be guided by principles of necessity, proportionality, and fairness. The failure to observe these parameters, coupled with the erroneous invocation of the MPID Act, renders the impugned order illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent and writ jurisdiction.

 

19.  That this Hon’ble Court has been vested with the extraordinary and inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law. The present Petition is filed invoking these powers, as the continuance of the impugned freezing order and the proceedings arising therefrom constitute nothing short of an abuse of process and a gross misuse of the State machinery without any just or sufficient cause.

20.  That the impugned order dated 29th September 2025 has been passed by the Learned Special Judge, Pune, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The Respondent authorities, including the Investigating Officer and the State of Maharashtra, are also situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Hence, this Hon’ble Court has territorial as well as subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain, try, and decide the present Petition.

21.  That the present Petition is filed within the period of limitation as the impugned order was passed on 29th September 2025 and the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court promptly and bona fide.

22.  That the Petitioner declares that no other petition, appeal, or proceeding in respect of the subject matter of the present Petition has been filed or is pending before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court in India. The Petitioner, therefore, has no other efficacious alternative remedy except to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.

23.  That in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, the Petitioner prays that interim protection be granted by way of a stay against the operation, implementation, and effect of the impugned order dated 29th September 2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Pune, as well as against the continuing freezing orders of the Respondent authorities, pending final hearing and disposal of this Petition.

 

PRAYER

In the above facts and circumstances, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a.       Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29th September 2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Pune, in MPID Case No. 841 of 2022;

b.      Declare that the freezing of the Petitioner’s bank accounts under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with C.R. No. 27 of 2022 registered with Cyber Police Station, Pune City, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India;

c.       Direct the Respondent authorities and concerned banks to forthwith defreeze and restore operation of the following bank accounts of the Petitioner:

                    i.            A.U. Small Finance Bank, Kolkata – A/c No. 221126004368427

                  ii.            UCO Bank, Kolkata – A/c No. 18750210001004

                iii.            Axis Bank, Kolkata – A/c No. 922030039688065

d.      Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, stay the operation, implementation, and effect of the impugned order dated 29th September 2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Pune, and direct the Respondents not to take any coercive or adverse action in furtherance thereof;

e.       Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play.