Delhi High Court
Pay 10 Services Private Limited vs Union Of India Ad Ors on 26 February, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~117
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1592/2026 and CM APPL. 7763/2026
Date of Decision: 26.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
PAY 10 SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv with Mr.
Nakul Batra, Ms. Palak Sehgal, Ms.
Aankhi Anwesha, Mr. Akshar Bhatt, Mr.
Sukrit Seth, and Mr. Sreedhar Kale,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AD ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with
Mr. Atul Tanwar, Advocate for R-
1/UOI.
Ms. Anushka Verma and Mr. Rajat
Katyal, Advocate for R-3/Yes Bank. Mr.
Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Vinodh Kanna B, Ms. Shefali Munde,
Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Ms. Thilagavathi P,
Advocates for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:55:48 W.P.(C) 1592/2026 Page 1 of 10 KUMAR KAURAV
1. The Court is called upon to decide whether the instant writ petition,
challenging action purportedly taken under Sections 94 and 106 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ‘the BNSS’), and
Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter the ‘IT Act‘),
would be amenable to be challenged in a Writ Petition (Civil) or a Writ Petition
(Criminal).
2. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent
no.4-Tamil Nadu Police, while placing reliance on the decision of the Division
Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of N. Prakash vs. Manoj Kumar
and Ors.1, argues that the writ petition should have been registered as ‘W.P.
(Criminal)’ since the genesis of the entire dispute lies in a criminal
investigation.
3. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned senior counsel who appears for the
petitioner, contends otherwise. He submits that the petitioner, essentially, is
seeking protection of civil rights which stand infringed on account of the debit-
freeze on the petitioner’s account. According to him, the power to freeze bank
accounts emanates from Section 107 of the BNSS and not from Section 106 of
BNSS. According to him, Section 107 of the BNSS deals with the attachment
and forfeiture and restoration of property, and is not a criminal/penal provision.
He asserts that the powers of forfeiture under the said provision are essentially
civil in nature. The regime under Section 107 of the BNSS may be compared to
the regime of attachment, confiscation and restoration under Sections 5 and 8
of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter ‘the PMLA’).
1 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 1149 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 16:55:48 W.P.(C) 1592/2026 Page 2 of 10 KUMAR KAURAV
Reliance, in this regard, is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary vs. Union of India.2 It is submitted that
the Court, in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary, recognized that attachment is a civil
proceedings. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Biswanath Bhattacharya vs. Union of India and Ors. 3 to argue that
non-conviction based civil forfeiture regime are not ‘penalties’ within the
meaning of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. The decision in the case of
West Bengal vs. S. K. Ghosh4, has also been pressed into service to argue that
non conviction based forfeiture is not ‘penalty’ and is, in fact, a speedier
procedure for recovery of money, which is civil in nature.
4. It is also submitted that this Court is consistently following the practice
of entertaining writ petitions against unlawful freezing action in a civil writ
petition. Reference is made to Malabar Gold, Pawan Kumar Rai vs. Union of
India and Another,5 and Neelkanth Pharma Logistics (P) Ltd. v. Union of
India,6. The practice being followed by other High Courts to entertain writ
petitions on civil side against similar actions has been pointed out. Decisions
in the case of Dr. Sajeer vs. Reserve Bank of India Represented by its
Governor of RBI and Another7, Nazeer K.T. vs. Manager, Federal Bank and
Others 8 , Mohammed Saifullah vs. Reserve Bank of India, Rep. by its
2
2023 12 SCC 1
3
(2014) 4 SCC 392
4
(1962) SCC OnLine SC 53
5
2024 SCC OnLine Del 8936
6
2025 SCC OnLine Del 1055
7
2023 SCC OnLine Ker 9087
8
2024 SCC OnLine Ker 4614
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:55:48 W.P.(C) 1592/2026 Page 3 of 10 KUMAR KAURAV
Governor and Others9, Abdul Basith vs. Cyber, Economic & Narcotic Crime,
rep by Station House Officer and Another 10 , Khalsa Medical Store Thru.
Prop. Yashwant Singh vs. Reserve Bank Of India Thru. Governor And 3
Others.11
5. It is also submitted that even the Standard Operating Procedure for
NDRP-CFCRMS, Custody, restoration of money and Greivance Redressal
dated 02.01.2026, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs does not envisage
any criminal proceeding but rather, purports to facilitate recovery and
restoration of defrauded amounts to complainants in fair, transparent and
proportionate manner.
6. It is, thus, his argument that the impugned action infringes the petitoner’s
fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) and the
constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, therefore, has preferred a civil writ petition.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned senior counsel
appearing for the parties and have perused the record.
8. During the course of arguments, various submissions have been made by
Mr. Srinivasan on the merits of the case as well. However, this order is strictly
confined to the issue of maintainability of writ petition on the civil side.
9. As per the prevailing roster of this Court dated 31.12.2025, there seem to
be three broad jurisdictions; (i) Single Bench (Civil Jurisdiction), (ii) Single
Bench (Criminal Jurisdiction), and Original Jurisdiction (Civil).
9
2024 SCC OnLine Mad 5604
10
2025 SCC OnLine Ker 83
11
order dated 19.01.2026 in (WRIT – C No. – 12211 of 2025) (Allahabad HC)
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:55:48 W.P.(C) 1592/2026 Page 4 of 10 KUMAR KAURAV
10. This Bench is assigned, inter alia, civil writ petitions miscellaneous,
including those involving statutory authorities, DTC, Urban Arts Commission,
Airport Authority of India etc. from year 2021 onwards. This Bench exercises
civil jurisdiction as per the Roster. The Single Benches exercising criminal
jurisdiction are also assigned writ petitions (criminal) of the year 2026.
11. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that writ petitions raising
grievances related to fundamental rights of citizens and for enforcement of their
other legal rights can be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
before this Court. As to which writ petition would fall within the criminal
jurisdiction and would fall in civil jurisdiction; there does not seem to be any
clear demarcated guidelines. The Court, therefore, as and when called upon
will have to examine the facts and circumstances of each case and to rule as to
whether the writ petition would lie as a civil or criminal.
12. This Court, whether in the civil jurisdiction or in the criminal jurisdiction
would exercise the same inherent power vested under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, and the said power is not circumscribed by any
nomenclature. Neither the Supreme Court, nor this Court, in any of the cases
relied upon by the parties, has laid down any conclusive line of demarcation
between civil writ petitions and criminal writ petitions. In this regard, therefore,
the Court has to consider the genesis of the dispute and the nature of the
challenge which is laid by the petitioner.
13. In the present petition, the prayer is two-fold; the first prayer is for
setting aside notices dated 23.01.2026 and 23/24.01.2026, issued by respondent
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:55:48 W.P.(C) 1592/2026 Page 5 of 10 KUMAR KAURAV
no. 4-Tamil Nadu Police; and the second prayer is for directing respondent
no.3- Yes Bank to defreeze petitioner’s Escrow account.
14. The impugned notice dated 23.01.2026 has been passed by the Police
Department of Cyber Crime Police Station, Theni District, Maduari, Tamil
Nadu. As is evident from the same, the impugned notice has been issued,
purportedly, in exercise of powers under Sections 94 and 106 of the BNSS. The
second notice dated 23.01.2026 refers to FIR No. 35/2025 registered at Theni
Police Station and in pursuance thereto certain directions have been passed.
15. A perusal of the said provisions indicate that as per the statutory scheme,
these provisions are invoked, primarily, for the purpose of investigation.
Section 94 of the BNSS empowers Courts and officers in charge of police
stations to summon any person who is believed to be in possession of any
document containing digital evidence or other thing necessary for the purposes
of investigation and produce such document. Section 106 of the BNSS
empowers the police to seize property which is found under circumstances
which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. It is therefore, clear,
that the impugned action, as per respondent no. 4-Tamil Nadu Police, is for the
purpose of its investigation into FIR No. 35/2025.
16. At this stage, paragraphs no. 8, 9, and 14 of the reply of respondent no.4
is extracted as under:
“8. It is respectfully submitted that during the course of investigation
and inter-agency coordination, the Petitioner’s payment aggregation
platform and escrow account maintained with Respondent No.3 were
repeatedly flagged through NCRP alerts and cyber-fraud reports,
necessitating immediate preventive action. Further, complaints
received by the Respondent No. 4 alongwith NCRP
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:55:48 W.P.(C) 1592/2026 Page 6 of 10 KUMAR KAURAV
Acknowledgement number and the preliminary investigation
conducted by the Respondent No. 4 revealed that the Bank Account
No. 001677900000042 of the Petitioner maintained at Respondent
No. 3 Bank is involved in defraud of funds.
9. Further, during the investigation of these cases, it is found that the
money trails traced through the NCRP portal originated only from
the date of the transactions complained. For example, if the
complainant transferred funds on 28.11.2025, the money trail would
begin only from that date onwards. Any routing of funds by the
involved accounts either prior to or after the date of the transaction
reported by the complainant such as transfers to escrow or merchant
accounts, is not reflected in the NCRP portal. In such cases, the
money trail must be traced manually by obtaining transaction
statements from the concerned banks. Where a complaint involves
multiple bank accounts, this process can take a considerable amount
of time to identify those who are facilitating the routing of scam
proceeds in a manner that appears legally compliant.
14. At the preliminary stage of investigation, immediate isolation of a
precise disputed amount is often impracticable, as transaction-level
reconciliation, victim mapping, and forensic analysis are required to
identify the actual proceeds of crime. In such circumstances, a
temporary protective lien is necessary and proportionate
investigative safeguards are required to prevent diversion or
laundering of suspected proceeds, preserve electronic and banking
evidence and to protect the interests of a large number of victims.”
17. The genesis of the entire dispute, therefore, lies in the ongoing criminal
investigation. The petitioner may have a merit in its submissions and may
succeed if it is able to satisfy the Court that the impugned action is not tenable
in law. However, this aspect is not the subject matter of adjudication at present.
Furthermore, as on date, the impugned action cannot be said to entail merely
civil consequences; rather, it gives rise to both civil and criminal consequences.
18. The argument of the petitioner that respondent no. 4-Tamil Nadu Police
has incorrectly invoked the provision under Section 106 of the BNSS instead of
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:55:48 W.P.(C) 1592/2026 Page 7 of 10 KUMAR KAURAV
Section 107 for taking the impugned action does not require to be considered,
at this stage. The same will have to be considered by the Court which
eventually will deal with the controversy on merits.
19. This Court is also persuaded to be guided by the principles enunciated by
the Division of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Nagpur Cable
Operators’ Association vs. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, 12 which was
followed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in N. Prakash.
The relevant portion of the decision in M/s Nagpur Cable Operators’
Association is extracted below, for reference:
“21. In the light of the aforesaid legal position explaining the nature of
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the classification
whether the said proceeding is civil or criminal, when the provisions of the
Appellate Side Rules are looked into, it would be found that all
applications under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the orders
and decisions of the Courts constituted under the Criminal Procedure
Code are dealt with on the side of criminal business of the Appellate Side
of this Court, but the said clause (i) of Part II, Criminal of Rule 2 of
Chapter I is not all exhaustive. Rule 2B of Chapter I, as observed above,
states that all petitions/applications under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution arising out of or relating to the order of penalty or
confiscation or an order in the nature thereof or an order otherwise of
penal character and passed under any Special Statute shall be heard and
decided by the Division Bench hearing writ petitions. This rule only
allocates that the class of petitions/applications under Articles 226 and/or
227 of the Constitution of India mentioned in Rule 2-B shall be decided by
the Division Bench hearing writ petitions, but does not classify the nature
of proceedings whether the said writ petition/application shall be criminal
or civil writ petition. Applying the tests laid down by the Apex Court in
Narayan Row’s case (supra), we are of the view that if the writ
petition/application under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution
arises out of or relates to a proceeding in which, if carried to its
conclusion ultimately it may result in sentence of death or by way of12
AIR 1996 Bom 180.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:55:48 W.P.(C) 1592/2026 Page 8 of 10 KUMAR KAURAV
imprisonment, fine or forfeiture of the property then such writ
petition/application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or
under Article 227 of the Constitution, should be treated as a “criminal writ
petition” and styled as such. For hearing and decision of such petition, it
should be listed before the Division Bench allocated such business by
Hon’ble the Chief Justice or if it pertains to the single Judge jurisdiction,
before the Bench assigned such work. As regards petitions/applications
under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writs or orders in the nature
of habeas corpus, Rule 1 of Chapter XXVIII of Appellate Side Rules, also
provides only allocation of such writ petitions to the Division Bench taking
criminal business of the Appellate Side of the High Court. Obviously, since
the petitions/applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of writs of habeas corpus arise out of the unlawful detention, in
its very nature, such petitions too should be styled as criminal writ
petitions. Criminal writ petitions would also cover those writ petitions
which arise out of the orders and the matters relating to prevention or
breach of peace or maintenance of peace and order or such orders aimed
at preventing vagrancy contemplated to be passed. „Criminal writ petition‟
shall also take in its embrace the petitions/applications under Article 226
or 227 of the Constitution of India if it arises out of or relates to
investigation, enquiry or trial of the offences either under special or
general statute. When a statute commands or prohibits an act,
disobedience of such statute is prima facie criminal unless criminal
proceedings are excluded by such statute and the petitions/applications
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in connection
thereto or arising therefrom would be criminal proceeding and should be
styled as „Criminal Writ Petition‟. However, such cases are to be
distinguished from the cases where an act may be prohibited or
commanded by the statute in such a manner that the person contravening
the provision is liable to pecuniary penalty and such recovery is to be
made a civil debt. In such type of cases the contravention would not be a
crime and, therefore, petitions/applications under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India arising therefrom would not be criminal
proceeding.”
(Emphasis supplied)
20. Having noted that aforesaid distinction, it emerges that instant is not a
case of administrative directions simplicitor directing the freezing of the
petitioner’s account, but rather, emanates from the ongoing criminal
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:55:48 W.P.(C) 1592/2026 Page 9 of 10 KUMAR KAURAV
investigation. The registration of FIR No. 35/2025, the invocation of Section
106 of the BNSS, and the fact that the position maintained by respondent no. 4-
Tamil Nadu Police in aforenoted paragraphs no. 8, 9, and 14 of the counter-
affidavit, all indicate that the action being impugned herein, has been taken,
whether correctly or incorrectly, in pursuance of criminal investigation under
the BNSS. It is for the petitioner to establish that the impugned action, in fact,
could not have been taken under Section 106 of the BNSS and Section 107
ought to have been invoked before the jurisdictional Court. The Court would be
fully empowered to deal with all issues. Preponderantly, the dispute lies in the
criminal domain, and the determinative factor for listing of matters, whether on
the criminal or civil side would be the predominant nature of the lis and not any
ancillary or incidental effects that may ensue in the course of the criminal
proceedings in issue.
21. Nothing stated above would have any bearing on the merits of the case.
All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. However, the Court
directs that the petition be registered as Writ Petition (Criminal) and subject to
the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, be listed before the appropriate
Bench.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
FEBRUARY 26, 2026
aks/amg.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:55:48 W.P.(C) 1592/2026 Page 10 of 10 KUMAR KAURAV
