To,                                                                       Dt.: xxxx

The Station House Officer

xxxx.

Ref:   Cyber Complaint No.xxxxx.

Sub:  Defreezing of Current Bank Account of the Company Xxxxx.

Respected Sir,

I, Xxxxx, Managing Director in the Company namely M/s. Xxxxx., I handling the operations of the business of the Xxxxx (“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. xxxxx maintained with Xxxxx enclave Branch, xxx  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 Mr. Xxxxx in relation to a transaction of ₹61,669/-, credited to Company’s account on 04.10.2024 by M/s. Xxxxx. The said transaction was against a GST invoice bearing No.QR/2024-25/3412 dated 26.09.2024 for the services rendered by M/s. Xxxxx. Specifically, our Company arranged a Malaysia tour package for the end-customer namely Mr. Xxxxx, who is the customer of M/s. Xxxxx. for the travel period from 02.10.2024 to 07.10.2024.

2.                 It is respectfully submit that M/s. Xxxxx. or its any Director have no direct or indirect connection with the complainant, Mr. Xxxxx. The Company merely acted as a service provider to Xxxxx., and the disputed transaction pertains only to a legitimate business transaction between our company and xxxxx. We are completely unaware of the nature of the dispute involving Mr. Xxxxx and Xxxxx 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 ₹61,669/-, 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 M/s. Xxxxx. 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 ₹61,669/- 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,

(Xxxxx)

Managing Director

M/s. Xxxxx.

xxx.