Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Lumicity Semiconductor Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 July, 2026
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
Reserved on : 22.05.2026
Pronounced on : 10.07.2026
M/s Lumcity Semiconductor Pvt. Ltd.
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana & Ors.
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Argued by : Ms. Anjali Jha, Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, and
Ms. Isha Janjua, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Sant Saran V, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a writ
in the nature of certiorari for the following reliefs:-
i. To set aside the order/written communication/notice dated
06.02.2026 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 106
‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’, hereinafter being
referred to as ‘BNSS’ only; andii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent No.2 to remove the lien of Rs.4,04,71,168/- and
further modified the lien amount to Rs.47,00,000/- as per
communication dated 06.03.2026 against the current bankGAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
2account of the petitioner bearing No.003105041633 lying with
ICICI Bank, Sector-18, Noida.
2. In nut-shell, the facts pleaded by the petitioner are that the
petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a
juristic person as per General Clauses Act, and that the present petition
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by one of
the Director, namely ‘Santosh Kumar’, who is duly authorised to do so.
According to petitioner, the petitioner company is engaged in importing and
trading of semiconductor and electronic components related to lighting/solar
industry, and that for the abovesaid purpose, it has been duly registered with
Goods and Service Tax Department. As per petitioner, in normal course of
its business activities, the petitioner company had purchased certain goods,
i.e. LED electronic circuit and Lithium Ion Battery from ‘Goel Lightings’
situated at C-4, Bahadrabad Industrial Area, Haridwar and further sold the
said product to ‘M/s Lumosync Ventures Pvt. Ltd.’, situated at Nagpur, with
the direction that the goods be supplied to ‘M/s GH2 Solar Ltd.’ at Noida.
3. According to petitioner, in order to discharge its obligation with
regard to abovementioned supply order, the petitioner Company approached
‘M/s Goel Lightings’ situated at C-4, Haridwar and placed the purchase
order for supply of abovementioned requisite articles. The petitioner has
further alleged that the abovementioned goods were duly supplied by ‘M/s
Goel Lightings’ and for the supply of abovementioned articles, requisite
payments were made by the petitioner Company. It has been alleged by the
petitioner that the petitioner Company further sold the said product to ‘M/s
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
3
Lumosync Ventures Pvt. Ltd.’, situated at Nagpur, regular basis in usual
course of its business, the petitioner company and the above-named
company were having a running account with regard to the supplies and
payments thereof.
4. It is the claim of the petitioner that with regard to
abovementioned business transactions, all the requisite legal formalities, as
per instructions, were performed by both the companies and all the
instructions issued in that regard were followed, and all the requisite papers
were prepared. The petitioner has further claimed that even the requisite tax
liability such as Goods and Service Tax and Income Tax etc. were duly paid
by the above-named companies.
5. It is the claim of the petitioner that all of a sudden, on
06.02.2026, the petitioner was issued notice under Section 94 of BNSS with
regard to FIR No.2 dated 01.01.2026, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338,
340(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Sector-
50, Gurugram. According to petitioner, by virtue of abovementioned notice,
the petitioner was called upon to produce the requisite documents/articles
before the Economic Offences Wing-1, Room No.409, 4th Floor, C.P.
Office Building, Gurugram. As per petitioner, later on the petitioner came to
know that with regard to some business dispute between ‘Rah Infotech Pvt.
Ltd.’ and the companies, namely ‘M/s Goel Lighting’ and ‘M/s HQ Lamps
Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’, the abovementioned FIR was lodged at the
instance of ‘Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ and the abovementioned notice was
issued with regard to abovementioned dispute.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
4
6. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to abovementioned
notice, the authorized representative of the petitioner Company appeared
before the respondent No.2 along with requisite documents. However, the
respondent No.2 refused to accept the same on the ground that the
documents would be accepted only if they were produced personally by the
Director of the petitioner Company. It has been further submitted that the
Investigating Officer was duly informed that the Director was not available
in town, as he had gone to his native place to attend his niece’s wedding.
Despite this, the respondent No.2 declined to accept the documents.
Consequently, the petitioner Company forwarded the requisite documents to
the respondent No.2 through e-mail.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that despite abovementioned
efforts, the respondent No.2 proceeded to place a lien on the bank account of
the petitioner for a sum of Rs.4,04,71,168/- and it was communicated by the
banker of the petitioner to the petitioner. While challenging the
abovementioned act of the respondent No.2, for the relief mentioned above,
the instant petition has been filed.
8. It is the case of the prosecution that upon receipt of a notice
issued under Section 94 of BNSS by the police, in connection with FIR No.2
dated 01.01.2026, ICICI Bank marked a lien on the bank account of
petitioner Company. The petitioner was informed through e-mail dated
14.02.2026 that the lien had been imposed pursuant to the said notice and
was advised to approach the concerned investigating authority for its
removal.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
5
9. It is the further case of the prosecution that subsequently vide
communication dated 06.03.2026, ICICI Bank informed the petitioner that
acting upon the aforesaid notice issued by Police Station Sector-50,
Gurugram, a lien to the extent of Rs.47,00,000/- has been put on the bank
account of the petitioner.
10. On notice, the abovementioned petition has been opposed by
the respondents No.1 & 2. They have filed a joint reply. The respondents
No.1 & 2 in their reply have come forward with a plea that for the
commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338,
340(2) and 61(2) of BNS, one FIR has been lodged in Police Station Sector-
50, Gurugram. According to respondents No.1 & 2, the abovementioned FIR
has been lodged at the instance of ‘Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’, wherein there are
allegations that the representative of ‘Goel Group’, through the sale
representative of complainant, had approached the complainant for supply of
semiconductor and solar panel components. The ‘Goel Group’ represented
that the material was urgently required and assured to make the payment of
price of abovementioned goods within a period of 90 days. It was further
represented that the material would be procured from ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’, as
the abovementioned Company only, used to work on ‘Letter of Credit’ (LC).
It was also represented that the companies of ‘Goel Group’ were unable to
issue ‘Letter of Credit’ due to financial constraints, and ensured timely
payment of money to the complainant.
11. The respondents further alleged that the complainant further
alleged that based upon the abovementioned representation, purchase orders
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
6
were placed with the complainant by the Company of ‘Goel Group’, namely
‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ and ‘M/s Goel Lightings’, both
entities controlled by ‘Mr. Rakesh Goel’. According to complainant, in
furtherance of abovementioned inducement, the representatives of ‘Goel
Group’ personally visited the complainant’s Gurugram Office and finalized
the deal. The complainant further claimed that during such meetings, the
representatives of ‘Goel Group’ projected that they were established
OEM/manufacturers with 20 years of experience and financially sound, but
later on, the abovementioned claims were found to be false.
12. According to respondents, it was claimed by the complainant
that it was expressly represented that physical material would be supplied
and delivered in ordinary course of business, but on detailed verification it
had been conclusively established that no physical shipment of material had
ever taken place, and that ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ never delivered goods to ‘HQ
Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’. It was further revealed that ‘GH2 Solar
Ltd.’ raised its material invoices with ‘Bill To’ as ‘Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’
and the corresponding ‘Ship To’ as ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt.
Ltd.’ (the Goel controlled entities), but actual transactions of goods had
never taken place. The respondents further alleged that as per complainant,
by preparing the documents in the abovementioned fashion, the complainant
was deliberately positioned as a financial intermediary, whereas there was
no physical receipt/delivery/ movement of goods at the end of entities of
Goel Group.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
7
13. It has been further alleged by the respondents that as per
complainant, on deeper scrutiny, it has been revealed that the entire
transaction was originated and pre-structured by Goel-controlled entities,
beginning from ‘VG Electronics Ltd.’, a company controlled by ‘Gaurav
Goel’ S/o ‘Rakesh Goel’, and that ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ acted in active
connivance and conspiracy with the ‘Goel Group’. The respondents further
alleged that as per complainant, although delivery-challans, transporter-bills,
and e-way bills were produced to show movement of goods, but on
independent verification of details by the complainant, it was found that the
bills of transporter were forged and fabricated, because the transporters,
named in the documents, either denied having transported any such material,
or did not possess any corresponding record.
14. The respondents further alleged that according to complainant,
relying upon the abovementioned representation, ‘Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’
paid Rs.55.55 crores to ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’, through a 90-day ‘Letter of
Credit’ and that towards partial discharge of their liability, ‘M/s Goel
Lightings’, issued cheques amounting to Rs.30.25 crores (approx.) in favour
of complainant. As per respondents, the funds in the relevant account were
insufficient, and therefore, on the presentation of cheques, the banker of
‘M/s Goel Lightings’ refused to honour the same. The respondents further
alleged that initially ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ had not
issued any cheques, but subsequently post-dated cheques dated 15.01.2026,
16.01.2026, 17.01.2026 and 18.01.2026 were issued amounting to
Rs.26,96,46,912/-. As per respondents, it was the allegation of the
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
8
complainant that upon verification, it was found that in the account of ‘HQ
Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’, the abovementioned money was not
available.
15. In view of abovementioned facts, it has been alleged by the
respondents that as per complainant, right from the very beginning, with an
intention to cheat the complainant, a web was designed by the Companies of
‘Goel Group’ and false documents were created to earn trust of the
complainant and by adopting the abovementioned modus operandi, a loss to
the tune of Rs.55.55 crores (approx.) has been caused to the complainant.
16. It has been further alleged by the respondents that during the
course of investigation, in the abovementioned case, it transpired that the
accused company, namely ‘M/s Goel Lightings’ and ‘HQ Lamps
Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’, on the basis of lorry receipts/goods receipts,
have claimed the actual physical delivery of the goods, but the
representatives of the transport company revealed that no such transportation
of goods through their vehicles, had taken place.
17. According to respondents, it has also been revealed during the
course of investigation that out of Rs.54.10 crore transferred by the
complainant company to ‘GH2 Solar Company Pvt. Ltd.’ (against the Letter
of Credit) for supply of goods, a sum of Rs.9,10,74,583/- was received by
the petitioner Company and therefore, a notice under Section 94 of BNSS
was issued to ‘Lumcity Semiconductor Pvt. Ltd.’ (the petitioner herein) and
‘M/s Shri Sai Enterprises’, calling upon them to join the investigation. As
per respondents, both the partners of co-accused firm had appeared before
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
9
the Investigating Agency on 14.02.2026 and sought one-week time, but
thereafter, they never turned up and did not join the investigation.
18. The respondents have further claimed that during the course of
investigation, when co-accused ‘Harshal Rajeev Lanjewar’ was joined in the
investigation, he suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he stated that he in
connivance with ‘Rakesh Goel’, ‘Gaurav Goel’, ‘Amit Rai’ and other
accused, hatched a plan to defraud the complainant and misappropriate the
funds. He further stated that the bank accounts of ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’,
‘Lumosync Ventures Pvt. Ltd.’, ‘AVM Traders’, ‘Sea Range Component
Pvt. Ltd.’, ‘Lumcity Semiconductor Pvt. Ltd.’ (the petitioner herein), ‘Enkay
Polymers’, ‘Savitri Electronics Pvt. Ltd.’, ‘Shri Sai Enterprises’ and ‘VG
Electronics’ were used for layering the transactions, and that ‘Shanky Group
and Marketing Team LLP’ were involved to convert the funds into cash,
using their bank accounts for the same purpose.
19. According to respondents, since a part of the money pertaining
to the fraudulent transactions, i.e. Rs.9,10,74,583/- was received by the
petitioner Company and out of abovementioned money, only
Rs.8,63,88,631/- was transferred to ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt.
Ltd.’ and Goel companies for the remaining amount of Rs.47,00,000/-, a lien
was placed by issuing a direction to the Director of the petitioner.
20. Heard.
21. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner is a Company, who is pursuing its business in bona fide
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
10
manner and that the dispute/FIR is with regard to transactions which had
taken place between ‘Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ and the firms/companies of
‘Rakesh Goel’, ‘Gaurav Goel’, ‘Amit Rai’. According to learned counsel for
the petitioner, in bona fide manner in usual course of business, when an
order for supply of certain articles (pertaining to the business of the
petitioner) was placed by the ‘Goel Lightings’ and further sold to ‘M/s
Lumosync Ventures Pvt. Ltd.’ with a direction to supply goods to ‘M/s GH2
Solar Ltd.’. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the
abovementioned transactions, all the requisite formalities pertaining to
supply of goods, transportation of goods, payment of tax, preparation of
account books and preparation of other paper/bills etc. were duly complied
with and thus, with regard to abovementioned bona fide business
transaction, no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner firm.
22. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that being in business is to the same field, there was a running
account with regard to due payments between the company of petitioner and
‘M/s HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ and ‘M/s Goel Lightings’ and
therefore, in normal course, there could have been due amount of either side
towards other business entities. According to learned counsel for the
petitioner, since the petitioner is stranger to the dispute between the
complainant (‘M/s Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’) and the accused firm of ‘Rakesh
Goel’, ‘Gaurav Goel’, ‘Amit Rai’ and etc., the order for placing the lien
upon the bank account of the petitioner is totally illegal, unwarranted and
against the settled proposition of law.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
11
23. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, since the money lying
deposited in the account of petitioner is not stolen money or there is no
suspicion that any offence with regard to abovementioned money has been
committed, the provisions of Section 106 of BNSS cannot be invoked in the
present case. It has been claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that in fact in the present case, the provisions of Section 107 of BNSS are
attracted and as per sub-clause (1) & (2) of Section 107 of BNSS, the lien
could have been placed upon the account of the petitioner firm by filing an
application before the Court of Magistrate, with the approval of
Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, for attachment of property
and the Court of Magistrate, after serving notice upon the petitioner, calling
upon it to explain as to why the order of attachment should not be made,
would have issued the order for attachment of property. As per learned
counsel for the petitioner, in the present case the abovementioned procedure
has not been adopted and therefore, the impugned order is illegal and nonest.
24. In support of her arguments, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the principles of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the following cases:-
i. Teesta Atul Setalvad V/s State of Gujarat, 2018 (2) SCC 372
ii. M.T. Enrica Lexie & Anr. V/s Doramma & Ors., 2012(6) SCC
760iii. Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II), T.N. V/s State of T.N.
& Ors., 2005(8) SCC 771GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
12And also the principles of law laid down by other High Courts
in the following cases:-
i. Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. V/s State of Kerala, 2025 SCC
OnLine Ker 3546, (the High Court of Kerala)ii. Malabar Gold and Diamond Ltd. & Ors. V/s Union of India &
Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 297, (the High Court of Delhi)iii. Geeta Kampani V/s State of Mahrashtra & Anr., 2026 SCC
OnLine Bom 2937, (the High Court of Bombay)
25. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel
for the respondent No.3 as well as learned counsel for the complainant, has
controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by
learned counsel for the complainant that instant case is a case, wherein in
active connivance with each other, the funds provided by the complainant
firm ‘M/s Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ have been siphoned-off by the recipient
firm, namely ‘M/s Goel Lightings’ and ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt.
Ltd.’ and a web has been created to conceal all the illegal transactions, and
the dubious transactions have been given the colour of normal business
transactions between the two firms.
26. According to learned counsel for the complainant, instant case
is a case, wherein numerous false documents have been created by the
accused in the name of their own firms as well as in the name of other firms,
showing that there has been actual supply of goods and transactions of
money, but on physical verification of the facts, it has transpired that neither
any goods had been purchased, nor transported and thus, no supply,
whatsoever, had taken place, but in order to defraud the complainant, vis-Ã -
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
13
vis the tax authorities, false bills, receipts, invoices and transportation
receipts were created.
27. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the
complainant that in order to secure the return of money, illegally received by
the petitioner and other accused, in the exercise of its jurisdiction vested by
virtue of Section 106 of BNSS, a lien has been created upon the account of
petitioner. The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended
that since a part of the proceeds of crime has been received by the petitioner
in its account without any proper justification, the Investigating Agency has
rightly placed a lien upon the abovementioned account, and that the
Investigating Agency has been duly authorized to exercise such jurisdiction,
by the Legislature by virtue of Section 106 of BNSS.
28. The learned State Counsel has contended that in order to secure
the proceed of crime and recover the same at appropriate stage, in the
exercise of its lawful authority, the Investigating Agency has rightly
approached the banker of the petitioner for placing lien to the tune of
Rs.47,00,000/- upon the account of the petitioner. According to learned State
Counsel, since the lien upon the account of the petitioner has been placed in
the exercise of jurisdiction vested by virtue of Section 106 of BNSS, this
argument of learned counsel for the petitioner has no force that the
procedure laid down under Section 107 of BNSS should have been followed
before placing lien on the account of the petitioner.
29. In support of their arguments, the learned State Counsel,
learned counsel for the respondent No.3 as well as learned counsel for the
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
14
complainant have referred to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the following case:-
i. State of Maharashtra V/s Tapas D. Neogy, 1999(4) RCR
(Criminal) 232And also the principles of law laid down by the Bombay High
Court in the following case:-
i. Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur & Ors. V/s Union of India & Ors.,
2025 SCC Online Bom 4778
30. The record has been perused carefully.
31. With regard to authority of police officer to seize a property, the
High Court of Kerala in the case of ‘Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd.’ (supra) has
observed that even if it is established that there was money transaction
between the accused and the company of the petitioner and it had to be
presumed that the abovementioned money was part of proceed of money,
even then without following the procedure enshrined under Section 107 of
BNSS, the account could not have been frozen.
32. The High Court of Delhi in the case of ‘Malabar Gold and
Diamonds Ltd.’ (supra), while dealing with similar situation, issued
following directions:-
“(i) Respondent No. 4 shall forthwith issue appropriate directions
to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to defreeze the petitioners’ bank
accounts.
(ii) If any enforcement or investigating agency proposes to initiate
or is conducting an investigation against the petitioners, it shallGAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
15be at liberty to do so in accordance with the provisions of the
BNSS, and the petitioners undertake to fully cooperate with
such investigation.
(iii) In the event of finding a positive and specific material
indicating the petitioners’ complicity, Respondent No. 4 shall
be at liberty to issue fresh directions, in accordance with law.
33. While dealing with the purpose, object and scope of Section
102 of CrPC (akin to Section 106 of BNSS), the High Court of Bombay in
the case of ‘Geeta Kampani’ (supra), has observed that ‘at this stage, the
object and purpose of the provisions contained in section 102 of the Code,
deserve to be revisited. It is essentially a tool for investigation and collection
of evidence to sustain the charge against the accused. Section 102 is neither
intended to confer, nor a repository of, the power to seize the property for
the purpose of its delivery to the person / victim whom the IO consider to be
rightful owner. In the absence of a direct link between the seized property
and the commission of the offences, to concede the power to the
investigating agency to seize the property would amount to allowing the
investigating agency to trench upon adjudicatory province and do
compensatory justice’.
34. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed by the High
Court of Bombay that ‘if the freezing of the account is allowed to continue
till the conclusion of trial, it would amount to an order of attachment before
judgment without the first informant satisfying the strict rigour’.
35. In the case of ‘Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal’ (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that freezing of all bank
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
16
accounts of Mutt and its connected bodies, merely on the ground that head
of the said Mutt was involved in a murder case, is not proper.
36. In the case of ‘M.T. Enrica Lexie & Anr.’ (supra), it has been
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that a property not
suspected of commission of offence, which is being investigated into by the
police officer, cannot be seized. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, only the property covered under Section 102(1) of CrPC can be seized
by the police officer.
37. As far as the scope of Section 102(1) of CrPC is concerned, it
provides that ‘such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a
police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer’.
38. I have given my due consideration to the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the principles of law laid down in the
abovementioned judgments.
39. As far as the factual matrix of the present case is concerned, a
careful perusal of the FIR, vis-Ã -vis the petition filed by the petitioner,
shows that there are certain facts qua which there is no quarrel between the
parties:-
i. that FIR No.2 dated 01.01.2026 has been lodged in Police
Station Sector-50, Gurugram with regard to commission of
offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;
ii. that pursuant to lodging of abovementioned FIR, the
investigation has been taken up by the police;
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
17iii. that the abovementioned FIR has been lodged at the instance of
‘M/s Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’;
iv. that the basic allegations with regard to cheating and forgery are
against the firms/companies belonging to ‘Rakesh Goel’,
‘Gaurav Goel’, ‘Amit Rai’ and other accused;
v. that the petitioner Company is not a company owned by
abovementioned persons;
vi. that a sum of Rs.9,10,74,583/- was received by the petitioner
company in its account from ‘M/s Lumosync Ventures Pvt.
Ltd.’; andvii. that during the course of investigation, the Investigating
Agency found that against a sum of Rs.47,00,000/- (approx.)
received by the petitioner, no documentary evidence has been
produced with regard to supply of goods.
40. In the light of abovementioned admitted facts, if the various
pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are examined, there
appears to be two major points, which need determination in the present
case:-
i. Whether the police officer has got a right to place a lien on the
bank account; andii. Whether the abovementioned jurisdiction has been rightly
exercised by the police officer in the present case.
POINT NO.1
41. As far as this point of determination is concerned, at the very
outset it is pertinent to mention here that in the case of ‘Teesta Atul
Setalvad’ (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
18
Investigating Officer can legitimately seize the bank account under Section
102 of BNSS, and that the suspicion entertained by the Investigating Officer
has to be accepted. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, after
completion of Investigation, the aggrieved party can approach the
appropriate Court to de-freeze the account.
42. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India also observed that any property, as mentioned in Section 102(1) of
CrPC, includes bank account creating suspicion about the commission of
offence. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Investigating
Officer in the course of investigation has power to seize or prohibit
operation of bank account of any person, which may be found under
circumstances creating suspicion of commission of any offence.
43. While dealing with the scope of Section 102 CrPC, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Tapas D. Neogy’ (supra) has
observed as under:-
“Having considered the divergent views taken by different High
Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank account
can be held to be `property’ within the meaning of said Section
102(1), we see no justification to give any narrow
interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure
Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has
become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with
the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in
concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in
mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of theGAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
19Criminal Procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted
therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the
bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in
a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of
the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the accused and
the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has
any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by
the accused as a public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to
take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his
relation is `property’ within the meaning of Section 102 of the
Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in course of
investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said
account if such assets have direct links with the commission of
the offence for which the police officer is investigating into.
44. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India further observed that:-
In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the
conclusion that the High Court of Bombay committed error in
holding that the police officer could not have seized the bank
account or could not have issued any direction to the bank
officer, prohibiting the account of the accused from being
operated upon.”
45. In view of abovementioned principles of law propounded by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the present case if it is established that
the Investigating Officer was having a reasonable doubt/suspicion with
regard to the amount lying in the account of petitioner, that it was a proceed
of crime, he had got an authority to issue a direction for placing lien
thereupon. In this regard, Section 106(1) & (2) of BNSS provides as under:-
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
20“(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.”
However, with regard to attachment, forfeiture or restoration of
the property, Section 107(1) & (2) of BNSS provides as under:-
“(1) Where a police officer making an investigation has reason
to believe that any property is derived or obtained, directly or
indirectly, as a result of a criminal activity or from the
commission of any offence, he may, with the approval of the
Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police, make an
application to the Court or the Judicial Magistrate exercising
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence or commit for trial
or try the case, for the attachment of such property.
(2) If the Court or the Judicial Magistrate has reasons to
believe, whether before or after taking evidence, that all or any
of such properties are proceeds of crime, the Court or the
Magistrate may issue a notice upon such person calling upon
him to show cause within a period of fourteen days as to why an
order of attachment shall not be made.”
46. Here it shall not be out of place to look into the definition of
‘proceed of crime’. ‘Proceed of crime’ has been defined under Section
111(c) of BNSS, which provides as under:-
“proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained
directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminalGAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
21activity (including crime involving currency transfers) or the
value of any such property”
47. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the
abovementioned provisions of law provided by the Legislature and the
interpretation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of ‘Teesta
Atul Setalvad’ and ‘Tapas D. Neogy’ (supra), it is hereby observed that it is
well within the jurisdiction of the police officer to issue a direction for
freezing of account of the petitioner provided that there is a doubt that the
amount lying in the account of petitioner, to the extent of Rs.47,00,000/- is
proceed of crime. The point of determination No.1 is hereby answered
accordingly against the petitioner.
POINT NO.2
48. As far as this point of determination is concerned, there are
some situations, which are necessary to be looked into in the present case.
First situation is the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner company was
having a regular business dealing with firm, namely ‘M/s HQ Lamps
Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’, ‘M/s Goel Lightings’, ‘M/s Lumosync
Ventures Pvt. Ltd.’, and therefore, there is a possibility, wherein some
amount of one firm is due towards the abovementioned account. But at the
same time, there may be a situation, wherein if the abovementioned amount
lying deposited in the account of petitioner is found to be proceeds of crime,
on de-freezing the account of petitioner, the same may be withdrawn and at
the time of final adjudication of the case there may be difficulty in
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
22
recovering the abovementioned amount, despite a finding that it was the
proceeds of crime.
49. Thus, in order to harmonize the difficulty being faced by the
petitioner, who may be found innocent at the time of final adjudication of
the trial, and also to safeguard the rights of the complainant, who may be
held entitled to receive the proceed of crime, (which is at present lying in the
freezed account of the petitioner) if the following arrangement is made, it
will be a win-win situation for both, because on one hand the petitioner shall
avail the advantage of utilizing the money for which the lien has been
created and on the other hand, the rights of the complainant, who is claiming
himself to be a victim of cheating, would be duly secured.
50. In view of above, in my opinion, it shall be appropriate that a
direction is issued for de-freezing of the account of the petitioner, subject to
the condition that the petitioner would furnish a security bonds equivalent to
the amount freezed in his account, at the instance of respondent No.2. The
point of determination No.2 is hereby answered accordingly.
CONCLUSION
51. Taking into consideration the observations recorded on the
abovementioned two points of determination, the present petition is hereby
disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to remove the lien from
the account of petitioner, on furnishing security bonds, by the petitioner,
equivalent to the freezed amount, to the satisfaction of Jurisdiction
Magistrate/trial Court. Once the requisite bonds are furnished and intimation
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3552-2026 (O&M)
23
is given to the Jurisdiction Magistrate/trial Court to the Investigating
Agency, the lien placed by the respondent No.2 shall be withdrawn within a
period of next three working days of the bank.
52. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of, accordingly.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
10.07.2026
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.07.14 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
