ToDt.: Date of application
The Station House Officer
Police station address.
Ref: Cyber Complaint No. Cyber complaint number.
Sub: Application for defreezing of the current bank account of M/s. Company name.
Respected Sir,
I, Managing Director's name, Managing Director of M/s. Company name (the “Company”), which carries on the business of Business line of the company, most respectfully submit this application seeking your urgent intervention for the defreezing of the Company’s current bank account, on the following facts and legal submissions:
1.That the Company’s current account bearing No. Bank account number maintained with Bank name, Bank branch name Branch, Branch location, has been frozen. Upon inquiry, the Bank informed us that the freezing was occasioned by a complaint lodged by one Mr. Complainant's name in respect of a transaction of Disputed transaction amount, credited to the Company’s account on Date of credit of disputed transaction by M/s. Remitting company name. The said transaction was against GST invoice No. GST invoice number dated GST invoice date, raised for services rendered by M/s. Service provider company name. Specifically, the Company arranged a Malaysia tour package for the end-customer, Mr. End customer's name, who is a customer of M/s. Customer company name, for the travel period from Travel start date to Travel end date.
2.That it is respectfully submitted that neither M/s. Company name nor any of its Directors has any direct or indirect connection with the complainant, Mr. Complainant's name. The Company acted merely as a service provider to M/s. Customer company name, and the disputed transaction pertains solely to a legitimate business transaction between the Company and M/s. Customer company name. The Company is entirely unaware of the nature of the dispute between Mr. Complainant's name and M/s. Customer company name, and is fully willing to cooperate with the police investigation to resolve the matter expeditiously.
3.That the freezing of the Company’s account appears to be a disproportionate action and is not in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 102 of the CrPC (New Section 106 BNSS). It is well settled in law that a police officer, upon seizing any property (including a bank account), must forthwith report the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate, as held in 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 any such report was made to the Magistrate in the present case.
4.That the power of the police to freeze a bank account under Section 102 of the CrPC (New Section 106 BNSS) is circumscribed by the requirement of a clear nexus between the crime and the account. As emphasised in the landmark judgment of State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy Judgment citation, the police may exercise the power of freezing an account only where there is a reasonable connection between the crime under investigation and the account sought to be frozen. In the present case, there is no allegation of fraud, misappropriation or any other criminal act involving the entire account; the dispute pertains only to the specific amount of Disputed transaction amount. The freezing of the entire account is therefore arbitrary, excessive and beyond the scope of the law.
5.That the operations of the Company have come to a standstill owing to the freezing of the account. The Company is unable to make payments to its vendors, disburse salaries to its employees, or carry out the routine transactions essential to the smooth functioning of its business. The freezing of the account, without justification or compliance with the legal provisions, amounts to paralysing the Company’s business and jeopardising the livelihood of its employees. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka Judgment citation, any action of the authorities that disproportionately interferes with a citizen’s right to carry on business is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The freezing of the Company’s account violates this constitutional right, as it cripples the functioning of the Company’s legitimate business operations without any substantial basis or reason.
6.That, in the alternative, if the Investigating Officer is of the view that the disputed transaction requires further inquiry, the law permits the freezing only of the amount in question and not of the entire bank account. In Rohit Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi Judgment citation, it was held that the freezing of accounts ought to be limited to the disputed amounts, since extending the freeze to the entire account results in excessive hardship and disruption of normal business activities.
In view of the aforementioned facts and submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that your goodself may kindly order the defreezing of the bank account of M/s. Company name, so as to enable the Company to carry out its day-to-day business operations, inasmuch as there is no evidence of any criminality or nexus between the crime and the said account; or, in the alternative, if the same is considered necessary for the ongoing investigation, kindly restrict the freeze to the disputed amount of Disputed transaction amount only, so as to permit the Company to resume its normal business activities without further disruption.
The Company reiterates its willingness to extend full cooperation to the ongoing investigation and looks forward to an early and just resolution of the matter.
Thanking you.
Yours sincerely,
(Signatory's name)
Managing Director
M/s. Company name.
Place of signing.