To, Dt.:
16.10.2024
The Station House Officer
_____Police Station
_____, Haryana.
Ref: Cyber Complaint No___________.
Sub: Defreezing of Current Bank Account of the Company
__________.
Respected Sir,
I, ________ ,
Managing Director in the Company namely M/s. ________, I handling the
operations of the business of the _________ (“Company”), write this application
seeking your urgent intervention to defreeze the current bank account of
Company based on the following facts and legal submissions:
1.
That our
Company’s current account bearing No. ______ maintained with ________, __
enclave Branch, Pitampura, New Delhi has been frozen. Upon inquiry, we were informed
by the bank that the freezing of the account was prompted by a complaint lodged
by one ______ in relation to a transaction of ₹____, credited to Company’s account
on _____ by M/s. __________. The said transaction was against a GST invoice bearing
No.______ dated ______ for the services rendered by M/s. ______. Specifically, our
Company arranged a Malaysia tour package for the end-customer namely Mr. _________,
who is the customer of _________. for the travel period from __________.
2.
It is respectfully
submitted that M/s. ________. or its any Director have no direct or indirect
connection with the complainant, Mr. ______. The Company merely acted as a
service provider to ______., and the disputed transaction pertains only to a
legitimate business transaction between our company and Antilog Vacations. We
are completely unaware of the nature of the dispute involving Mr. _______ and ______
Vacations and are more than willing to cooperate with the police investigation
to resolve this matter swiftly.
3.
The
freezing of account of our Company appears to be a disproportionate action that
fails to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 102 of CrPC (New
Section 106 BNSS). It is well-established in law that the police officer, when
seizing any property (including bank accounts), must forthwith report the
seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate, as held in the judgment of Muktaben
M. Mashru Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. [CRL. M.C. 4206/2018 & Crl.
M.A. 30311/2018, decided on 29.11.2019]. Non-compliance with this mandatory
provision vitiates the entire action of freezing the account. It is
respectfully submitted that there is no evidence or indication that such a
report was made to the Magistrate in this case.
4.
The
power of the police to freeze a bank account under Section 102 of CrPC (New
Section 106 BNSS) is circumscribed by the requirement of a clear nexus between
the crime and the account. As emphasized in the landmark judgment of State of
Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy [(1999) 7 SCC 685], the police can exercise
their power of freezing accounts only when there is a reasonable connection
between the crime under investigation and the account being frozen. In the
present case, there is no allegation of fraud, misappropriation, or other
criminal acts involving the entire account. The dispute pertains only to a
specific amount of ₹______/-, and thus the freezing of the entire account is
arbitrary, excessive, and beyond the scope of the law.
5.
The operations
of our Company have come to a standstill due to the freezing of the account. We
are unable to make payments to our vendors, disburse salaries to employees, or
conduct routine transactions essential to the smooth functioning of the
business. The freezing of the account, without justification or compliance with
legal provisions, is tantamount to paralyzing our business and jeopardizing the
livelihood of our employees. As held by the Delhi High Court in K.T. Plantation
Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka [(2011) 9 SCC 1], any action taken by the
authorities that disproportionately interferes with a citizen's right to carry
on a business is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The freezing of our account is in violation of this constitutional right as it
cripples the functioning of our legitimate business operations without any
substantial basis or reason.
6.
In the
alternative, if the investigating officer believes that the disputed
transaction requires further inquiry, the law permits freezing only of the
amount in question and not the entire bank account. In Rohit Kumar vs. State of
NCT of Delhi [2018 SCC Online Del 10901], it was held that freezing of accounts
should be limited to the disputed amounts, as extending the freeze to the
entire account would result in excessive hardship and disruption of normal
business activities.
In view of the aforementioned facts and submissions, we
humbly request to your goodself to kindly defreezing of the bank account of ___________.
to enable the company to carry out its day-to-day business operations, as there
is no evidence of any criminality or nexus between the crime and the said
account; or in the alternative, if necessary for the ongoing investigation, restrict
the freeze to the disputed amount of ₹_____/- only, allowing the company to
resume normal business activities without further disruption.
We
reiterate our willingness to fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation and
look forward to an early and just resolution of the matter.
Thanking you.
Yours
sincerely,
__________
Managing Director
M/s. _______________
___________,
Delhi-110051.