# Marufa Begum v. U.O.I. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 1038
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-29
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 37053 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/marufa-begum-v-u-o-i-anr-54706
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Anand Krishna Narayana, C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the bank was
justified in freezing the bank account of the
petitioner, and whether the continued freezing
of the account is justified in the facts of the
present case, especially when the petitioner had
taken steps for having a new salary account
with another bank, after the account in question
got freezed.

Headnotes
Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -
S. 106 (Corresponding to S. 102 Cr.P.C.) -
Freezing of bank account - legality of
action - Bank account of petitioner freezed
on
instruction
of
the
Cyber
Crime
Department,
Anand,
Gujarat
-
investigation
regarding
transaction
alleged
to
have
originated
from
an
account unknown to the petitioner - Police
empowered to seize property (including
10 All. Marufa Begum Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1039
bank account) during investigation
-
obligation only to report the seizure to the
Magistrate - No requirement of prior order
of Magistrate - Criminal Procedure -
Power of police to seize property - Police
may seize any property found under
circumstances which create suspicion of
the Commission of any offence - Writ
Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Freezing of
bank account - When bank acts pursuant
to directions of investigating authorities,
and investigation is ongoing, High Court
will
not
direct
defreezing
in
writ
jurisdiction
-
remedy
lies
before
investigating authorities or a court of
competent
jurisdiction
-
Suspicious
transaction - salary account frozen - Rs.
35,000/- transferred from an account
"unknown to the petitioner - Cyber Crime
Branch,
Gujarat,
directed
freezing
-
Precedent - Reliance on Teesta Atul
Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 2 SCC
372 - freezing justified when procedure
under S. 102 Cr.P.C. (now S. 106 BNSS) is
followed.

Held: The Supreme Court observed that the
Investigating Officer having exercised powers
Under S. 102 could legitimately seize the bank
accounts after following the procedure - Police
can always direct the bank to freeze such bank
account
freezing
shall
depend
upon
the
outcome of investigation - a police officer is
entitled to seize property during investigation
and the only duty is to report such seizure to
Magistrate - There is no obligation to seek prior
order
-
Respondent
bank
has
acted
in
accordance with law in freezing the petitioner's
account if the petitioner is aggrieved it is open
to her to approach the investigating authorities
or a court of competent jurisdiction - No good
ground to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 - Petition consigned to records
with liberty to avail legal remedies.(Paras -
2,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Teesta Atul Setalvad v. The State of Gujarat,
(2018) 2 SCC 372.

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.); Bhartiya Nyaya
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

List of Keywords
freezing of the bank account; savings account;
suspicious
transaction;
Cyber
Crime
Department;
property
under
investigation;
seizure;
report
the
seizure;
investigation;
Shikshamitra;
bank
cannot
de-freeze;
appropriate relief.

Case Arising From
Petition challenging "the action of freezing of
the
bank
account
of
petitioner
by
the
respondent bank" and seeking a mandamus
directing the Bank to defreeze Savings Account
No. 43390100002893 and to allow withdrawal.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant / Petitioner
Anoop Kumar Sharma
Vikas Rastogi
Advs. for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.
Anand Krishna Narayana
C.S.C.
Sri Shailesh Kumar Pandey
Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi

## Text

1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ensuring that the inability to satisfy the
quantitative condition of residual holding
does
not
automatically
preclude
the
Collector from exercising his discretion in
deserving cases.

37. The interpretation of the
conjunction or, as enunciated in the
decisions G.P. Ceramics (P) Ltd., Guru
Nanak Dev University and Smt. Krishna
Shri Gupta, (supra) makes it abundantly
clear that 'or' is to be read in its ordinary
disjunctive sense, except where the context
unambiguously warrants a conjunctive
construction. No such exception arises in
the present context. Accordingly, the
conditions under clauses (a) to (d) of subrule (8) must be treated as alternative, not
cumulative.

38.
Applying
the
aforesaid
principles, it is evident that the petitioners
case was fully covered under clause (c) of
sub-rule (8) inasmuch as he sought
permission to transfer his land for the
purpose of purchasing another parcel of
land, as duly supported by the documentary
evidence. Once such condition stood
satisfied,
the
question
of
examining
whether the residual holding after transfer
was less than 1.26 hectares became
irrelevant in view of the Explanation
appended to Rule 99(8).

39. Having regard to the aforesaid,
the orders dated 23.11.2024 passed by the
respondent no.3 in Case No. 4481 of 2024
(Ramautar @ Ramavtar vs. State of U.P.)
and dated 03.07.2025 passed by the
respondent no.2 in Case No. 891 of 2025
(Ramautar @ Ramavtar vs. State of U.P.)
are set aside, and the matter is remitted
back to respondent no.3 for passing a fresh
order after recording due consideration to
the application of the petitioner in view of
the observations made in this judgment.

40. The writ petition is allowed to
the extent, as indicated above.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1038
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SWARUPAMA
CHATURVEDI, J.

Writ - C No. 37053 of 2025

Marufa Begum ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anoop Kumar Sharma, Vikas Rastogi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Anand Krishna Narayana, C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the bank was
justified in freezing the bank account of the
petitioner, and whether the continued freezing
of the account is justified in the facts of the
present case, especially when the petitioner had
taken steps for having a new salary account
with another bank, after the account in question
got freezed.

Headnotes
Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -
S. 106 (Corresponding to S. 102 Cr.P.C.) -
Freezing of bank account - legality of
action - Bank account of petitioner freezed
on
instruction
of
the
Cyber
Crime
Department,
Anand,
Gujarat
-
investigation
regarding
transaction
alleged
to
have
originated
from
an
account unknown to the petitioner - Police
empowered to seize property (including
10 All. Marufa Begum Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1039
bank account) during investigation
-
obligation only to report the seizure to the
Magistrate - No requirement of prior order
of Magistrate - Criminal Procedure -
Power of police to seize property - Police
may seize any property found under
circumstances which create suspicion of
the Commission of any offence - Writ
Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Freezing of
bank account - When bank acts pursuant
to directions of investigating authorities,
and investigation is ongoing, High Court
will
not
direct
defreezing
in
writ
jurisdiction
-
remedy
lies
before
investigating authorities or a court of
competent
jurisdiction
-
Suspicious
transaction - salary account frozen - Rs.
35,000/- transferred from an account
"unknown to the petitioner - Cyber Crime
Branch,
Gujarat,
directed
freezing
-
Precedent - Reliance on Teesta Atul
Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 2 SCC
372 - freezing justified when procedure
under S. 102 Cr.P.C. (now S. 106 BNSS) is
followed.

Held: The Supreme Court observed that the
Investigating Officer having exercised powers
Under S. 102 could legitimately seize the bank
accounts after following the procedure - Police
can always direct the bank to freeze such bank
account
freezing
shall
depend
upon
the
outcome of investigation - a police officer is
entitled to seize property during investigation
and the only duty is to report such seizure to
Magistrate - There is no obligation to seek prior
order
-
Respondent
bank
has
acted
in
accordance with law in freezing the petitioner's
account if the petitioner is aggrieved it is open
to her to approach the investigating authorities
or a court of competent jurisdiction - No good
ground to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 - Petition consigned to records
with liberty to avail legal remedies.(Paras -
2,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Teesta Atul Setalvad v. The State of Gujarat,
(2018) 2 SCC 372.

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.); Bhartiya Nyaya
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

List of Keywords
freezing of the bank account; savings account;
suspicious
transaction;
Cyber
Crime
Department;
property
under
investigation;
seizure;
report
the
seizure;
investigation;
Shikshamitra;
bank
cannot
de-freeze;
appropriate relief.

Case Arising From
Petition challenging "the action of freezing of
the
bank
account
of
petitioner
by
the
respondent bank" and seeking a mandamus
directing the Bank to defreeze Savings Account
No. 43390100002893 and to allow withdrawal.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant / Petitioner
Anoop Kumar Sharma
Vikas Rastogi
Advs. for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.
Anand Krishna Narayana
C.S.C.
Sri Shailesh Kumar Pandey
Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Swarupama
Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vikas Rastogi, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shailesh
Kumar Pandey, learned panel counsel for
the respondent-Bank and Sri Pradeep
Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. This petition is filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India against the
action of freezing of the bank account of
petitioner by the respondent bank with the
prayer to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus
directing
respondent
bank
(Respondent no. 5) to defreeze the Saving
Account No. 43390100002893 of Bank of
Baroda, Branch Imamganj, Mooratganj,
1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
District-Kaushambi and to permit the
petitioner to withdraw the amount from her
aforesaid account.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is employed as a
Shikshamitra
(Teacher)
at
Prathmik
Vidyalaya, Sakhadha, Block Mooratganj,
District Kaushambi. The salary of the
petitioner is credited into her savings
account maintained with Bank of Baroda,
Imamganj Branch, Mooratganj, bearing
Account No. 43390100002893. It is stated
that on 01.09.2022, an amount of Rs.
35,000/- was credited to the said account
from Account No. 99980103448713, IFSC
FDRL0001306, maintained with Federal
Bank,
Puthiyara
Branch
(Gujarat).
Subsequently, the petitioner?s aforesaid
account was freezed by the respondent
Bank. It is further submitted that upon
inquiry, the petitioner was orally informed
by the officials of the respondent Bank that
the said amount of Rs. 35,000/- had been
transferred by one Mustaq Ali and that the
Anand Cyber Crime Branch, Gujarat
Police, had directed the Bank to block the
petitioner?s account in connection with the
aforesaid transaction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the petitioner had given
applications to the respondent bank stating
that she neither knew the aforesaid person
who has transferred the amount, nor had
any concern with the alleged transaction,
and she requested the bank to open the
account of the petitioner. She also
approached the authorities in the bank and
requested for the de-freezing of the
account.

5. Per contra learned counsel
appearing for the respondent bank has
submitted on instructions that the account
of the petitioner was freezed on instruction
of the Cyber Crime Department, Anand,
Gujarat and the Bank cannot de-freeze the
account without prior approval of the
Cyber Crime Department, or the order of
the competent court, as the matter is still
under investigation and the account in
question is ?property? under investigation.

6.
Learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of
the State-respondents, opposes the reliefs
sought in the writ petition and submits that
where a bank has freezed an account in
connection with an ongoing investigation,
the primary consideration is whether the
officer directing such freezing of account
has acted in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under Section 106 of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(corresponding to Section 102 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973). He has also
placed reliance upon the judgement of the
Supreme Court in the case of Teesta Atul
Setalvad vs. The State of Gujarat (2018) 2
SCC 372 where it was held by the Supreme
Court that if the officer concerned has
followed the procedure prescribed in
Section 102 Cr.P.C. (present Section 106
BNSS) then freezing of the account by the
Bank is legally justified.
7. Having heard learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned counsel for the
bank
and
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel representing the State
respondents, and upon perusal of the
record, we find that the facts, as presented,
are not in dispute to the extent that the
petitioner?s bank account has been freezed
pursuant to directions issued by the
investigating authorities in connection with
a transaction alleged to have originated
from an account unknown to the petitioner,
and the transaction is suspicious in eyes of
concerned investigating agency.
10 All. Marufa Begum Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1041
8. So, the question that arises for
our consideration is, whether the bank was
justified in freezing the bank account of the
petitioner, and whether the continued
freezing of the account is justified in the
facts of the present case, especially when
the petitioner had taken steps for having a
new salary account with another bank, after
the account in question got freezed.

9. We have gone through Section
106 of Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 and the judgement referred by learned
counsel. The Supreme Court in the case of
Teesta Atul Setalvad vs. The State of
Gujarat (2018) 2 SCC 372, examined and
uphold the justness of the action of the
investigating officer in the context of the
bank account freezing and observed that :

 " 25. Suffice it to observe that as
the Investigating Officer was in possession
of materials pointing out circumstances
which create suspicion of the commission
of an offence, in particular, the one under
investigation and he having exercised
powers Under Section 102 of the Code,
which he could, in law, therefore, could
legitimately seize the bank accounts of the
Appellants after following the procedure
prescribed in Sub-section (2) and Subsection (3) of the same provision. As
aforementioned, ...and thus complied with
the requirement of Sub-section (3)."

10. Thus, in the event police comes
to conclude that during investigation a bank
account is to be freezed for suspicious
transaction, it can always direct the bank to
freeze such bank account. And of course,
such freezing of the account shall depend
upon the outcome of investigation. The
affected party can of course, seek remedy
from the Magistrate concerned after the
investigation
is
concluded
and
if
chargesheet is filed, to limit freezing of
account to the extent of money involved.

11. We consider it appropriate to
reproduce
Section
102
Cr.P.C.
now
reincorporated as Section 106 BNSS, as
under:-

 "102. Power of police officer to
seize certain property.-(1) Any police
officer may seize any property which may
be alleged or suspected to have been
stolen, or which may be found under
circumstances which create suspicion of
the Commission of any offence.

 (2)
Such
police
officer,
if
subordinate to the officer in charge of a
police station, shall forthwith report the
seizure to that officer.

 (3) Every police officer acting
under Sub-Section (1) shall forthwith
report the seizure to the Magistrate having
jurisdiction and where the property seized
is such that it cannot be, conveniently
transported to the Court or where there is
difficulty
in
securing
proper
accommodation for the custody of such
property, or where the continued retention
of the property in police custody may not
be considered necessary for the purpose of
investigation, he may give custody thereof
to any person on his executing a bond
undertaking to produce the property before
the Court as and when required and to give
effect to the further orders of the Court as
to the disposal of the same.

 Provided that where the property
seized under Sub-Section (1) is subject to
speedy and natural decay and if the person
entitled to the possession of such property
is unknown or absent and the value of such
property is less than five hundred rupees, it
1042 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
may forthwith be sold by auction under the
orders of the Superintendent of Police and
the provisions of sections 457 and 458
shall, as nearly as may be practicable,
apply to the net proceeds of such sale.

12. This provision is incorporated
verbatim under Section 106 of Bhartiya
Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. From a
bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is
clear that a police officer is entitled to seize
property
of
accused
persons
during
investigation by passing orders and the
only duty is to report such seizure to
Magistrate
concerned.
There
is
no
obligation cast upon police to seek prior
order from Magistrate for seizure of
property.

13. In the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the light of
legal position as discussed above, in our
considered view respondent bank has acted
in accordance with law in freezing the
petitioner?s
account
pursuant
to
the
directions issued and request made by the
Cyber Crime Department and if the
petitioner is aggrieved by freezing and
wants to get her account defreezed, it is
open to her to approach the investigating
authorities or a court of competent
jurisdiction
for
appropriate
relief
in
accordance with law as observed above.
Hence, we do not find any good ground to
exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to grant relief as prayed for.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is
consigned to records with liberty to the
petitioner to avail such remedies as may be
available to her in law.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1042
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ - C No. 1000182 of 1998

Pyarey Lal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Lko & Ors.
...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
D.C.Mukerjee,
Jai
Prakash
Yadav,
Mohammad Aslam Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Alok Sinha, R.N.Gupta, Rajeiu
Kumar Tripathi, Ambrish Singh Yadav

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to: Whether the revisional court
was justified in setting aside the order of the
Trial Court which had allowed the application
under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and restored the
suit, and whether the impugned order dated
9.11.1997 suffers from being a "non-speaking
order" passed "against well settled principles of
law"; further, whether "publication in the daily
newspaper 'Nav Jeevan' is only a city edition"
and not sufficient service, and whether "the suit
itself was barred by S. 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act" in
view of the final adjudication by consolidation
authorities.

Headnotes
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 9 Rule
13 - Ex parte decree - Setting aside of -
Requirement of Reasons - Reason is the
heartbeat
of
every
conclusion
-
It
introduces clarity in an order and without
the same, it becomes lifeless - Revisional
Jurisdiction
-
Non-speaking
Order
-
Revisional court must record reasons
showing why findings of trial court are
perverse or unsupported - The revisional
Court neither recorded any such finding
nor recorded any reason in regard to
finding of trial court - Service of Summons