The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to rssue any writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 herein in freezing the accounts of the petitioner herein in lieu of the lien dated 0411012024 vide acknowledgement No. MHA332O6240010467 without any authority and without following the due process of law, as wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the fundamental rights of the petitioner under article 19 and 21 of the lndian Constitution. lA NO:'l OF 2025 Petition under section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased direct the respondents No. 3 herein to de-freeze the accounts of t re petitioner herein, as per the procedure set in law, pending disposal of the writ p€ tition pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. ZUBAIR AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No..l: Gp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER '-' i'-**_'*'-' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.21592 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing lor respondent No. 1, and lr,ith their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Sir-rce the 2,,,r respondent is outside the jurisdiction of this Coult no notice is necessary to tl-re said respondent. Having regard to the nature of /is involved and the manner ol disposal of the writ petition, this Court is of the view that not ce to 3.d rcspondent is also not necessary for adjudication of thc prescnt Writ Petition

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the 3.,i respondent had freezed the petitioner's bank account on the instructions of the 2"4 respondent, r,r,hich action 'of thc 3.d respondent, it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary

4. It is also thc further case of the petitioner that though the 2n,l respondent had directed the 3"t respondent to marl< a lien on her account oniv to an extent of Rs. 1 lakh, the .3,, re sponCer_rt had freezed her account in its entirety, r.t hich actior i1 is conter.rded as highl-v illegai. arbitrary a1ld also ir-r violation of p,rrrclr:s lq, lg & 2l of the Constitution ol India

5. Per contro, learned Government pleacler frrr Home appcaring for respondc.rt No.1 submits that thc present \['rir. p-^tition as fired is not maintair-rable, since, the 1"r respondent is no u,ay concerned u,ith the freezing of the petitioner,s account, cven as per the petitio.er's ()\\', avcrments, and is based on a colrmunication addressed b-\, the 2nd respondent, *.ho is outsidc tlte jurrisdicrion of this Court

6. l,earncd (io'ernrner-rt pleader wourd furth,rr subrnit that the petitioner havi.g approached the 3ftr respcnd :nt_Bar-rk and the said Bank b-r. their reply, cit. l4.OS.2O2S, ha,,ing informecl the pet itioner of rhc actiorr raken by I hem is: pursuanr to a communication received from the 2.d respondent ald il the petitioner is aggrieved by the afcresaid comr: runication having directed thc pctitioner to avail lurther remedir.s by approaching the Office of RBI Ombudsman at the address rnentioned therein. ry-r;E 3 the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court without availing the said remedy

7. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

8. Insofar as the freezing of account in connection u'ith investigation into a crime even though the person, whose account has been freezed, is not arrayed as an accused, is settled by a decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21 106 of 2O21, dt.O4.IO.2O2l and W.P.No.9689 of 2020, dt.05.07.2021, q,hich has been follorn,ed by this Court in WP.No.B886 of 2025, dt.25.o3.2025.

9. Further, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner \ having approached the 3.4 respondent and the said respondent by its communication, dt.14.O5.2025 having informed the petitroner ol action taken by them is pursuant to a communication from the Cittzen Financial Cyber Frauds Reporting and Management System (CFCFRMS), and in the event of the petitioner not satisfying '6-ith the a-foresaid communication, can approach the office of the RBI Ombudsman at the addressed mentioned in the said communication, and as it is not shown to this Court of the 4 petitioner availing the said remedy, this Court is; of the vieu,' that the petitioner should be relegated to avail the saicl remedy instead of approaching l-his Court under Article 226 of tLLc Cor-rstitution of India

10. Granting iiberty to the petitioner to avail rhe remedy AS noted in the communication addressed by the 3'd respondent, dt.14.O5.O225, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 1 1. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if anv, pending sha1l stand closed. //TRUE COPY/I SD/. K.BHAVA ASSISTANT R NI SWAMY EGISTRAR SECTI FFTCER to'', The Principa' Secretary' Home Department Secretaria The State of , +f;'3fi*111't!!:'ft;;;,Bfg:'fl ff t"J[11i,,1331 3 ],,,*, Hyderabad' 5. The Brancn lvlanage * ?1'f iu3 ;:"'E 3,5..',!3 lL 3:,18fi - 6. Trivo CD CoPies "' T e I a n s a n a' a t Hvderabad [OUTI ["'""?'in Los'Y.? "ff I TJ LS '6- j I HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 ORDER WP.No.21592 of 2025 ( ( ). + { 10 sEP 205 \r.',, \ \ /)^^ - 5l'AIc' -- .. : 1>- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS d, ^c. c\ csY'w.\?, \t'