Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court delivered a significant ruling in the case of Aeronfly International Private Limited Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, addressing the legal question of whether a Cyber Cell can order the freezing of a bank account under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
The case involved a notice issued by the Investigating Officer to ICICI Bank, Kullu, directing the bank to freeze the account of the petitioner company, Aeronfly International. The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Aditya Mishra, argued that the freeze order was unlawful, as Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not empower investigative authorities to order such actions. He emphasized that the company’s employees were suffering due to the non-payment of salaries as a result of the frozen account, and that such action could only be taken after a thorough investigation and proper court order.
In response, the Additional Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, admitted that the correct legal procedure under Section 102 Cr.P.C. had not been followed. Section 102 requires the investigative agency to obtain an order from a magistrate before freezing bank accounts.
The High Court ruled in favor of Aeronfly International, holding that the Investigating Officer had exceeded his authority by ordering the debit freeze under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The court clarified that Section 91 only allows the officer to request the production of documents or other materials necessary for an investigation, not to freeze bank accounts.
As a result, the court quashed the notice issued on May 14, 2024, by the Cyber Cell in Kullu, thereby lifting the freeze on the petitioner company’s bank account.
This ruling sets a critical precedent on the limits of investigative powers under Section 91 Cr.P.C., reinforcing the need for due process when freezing bank accounts during an investigation.
Aeronfly International Private Limited (Petitioner) was represented by Advocates Aditya Mishra, Anshuman Singh and Kiran Sharma.
[Read Order]