[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S 1 Pay Digi Partnership Firm vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13399) on 17 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:13399]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1100/2026
M/s 1 Pay Digi Partnership Firm, R/o First Floor Sai Leela
Apartmnet B Wing, S/22 Padma Nagar Telipada, Bhiwandi,
Thane, Maharastra Through Its Partner Shani Kumar Kailash
Chnadra Jaisawal Age 37, R/o Flat No. 301, 3Rd Floor B Wing,
Building No. 2, New Oswal Park, Narkoli-2, Bhiwandi, Thane,
Maharastra
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sher Singh S/o Sohan Singh, R/o Manpura, P.s. Sayra,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
17/03/2026
1. In the present Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner has
sought the quashing of the Order dated 29.01.2026, passed by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Jalore, in Cyber Complaint
No.227058250020414, specifically to the extent that it pertains to
the freezing of the bank accounts of the petitioner firm, IPay Digi.
2. The background of the case involves a cyber complaint filed
by the complainant, Sher Singh, who alleges that certain unknown
persons, through a WhatsApp group, induced him to invest a
substantial amount of money in share market-related activities,
promising lucrative returns. Following these inducements, the
complainant claims to have transferred funds not only from his
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 02:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13399] (2 of 4) [CRLW-1100/2026]
personal bank account but also from the accounts of his family
members.
2.1. The petitioner firm, IPay Digi, is a duly registered entity
engaged in providing digital service facilitation and utility service
agency services. It operates as an intermediary platform,
facilitating lawful financial transactions between parties in the
ordinary course of business. Notably, the petitioner firm has no
involvement with the aforementioned WhatsApp group or with the
individuals who allegedly persuaded the complainant to invest
money.
2.2. Despite the absence of any direct connection between the
petitioner firm and the alleged fraudulent activities, the bank
accounts of the petitioner firm specifically, those held with
Ratnakar Bank Limited (Account No. 409002067552, IFSC:
RATN0000081) and Indusind Bank (Account No. 259579264130,
IFSC: INDB0000270) were included in the freezing order passed
by the learned CJM. It is against this backdrop that the petitioner
has approached this Court, seeking appropriate relief.
3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through
the impugned order as well as other material available on record.
3.1. The petitioner contends that the order passed by the learned
CJM, Jalore suffers from substantial flaws, including patent
illegality and material irregularity. The petitioner's principal
grievance is that the freezing of its bank accounts was carried out
without affording an opportunity for a prior hearing or adhering to
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 02:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13399] (3 of 4) [CRLW-1100/2026]
the well-established legal principles that govern such coercive
actions.
3.2. While it is not disputed that a certain sum of money is
alleged to have been credited to the petitioner's account in
relation to the offence under investigation, the action of freezing
the entire bank account, in a manner that lacks specificity
regarding the amount in question and without due consideration of
the necessity and proportionality of the measure is, in the view of
this Court, excessive and legally unsustainable. Such an
indiscriminate freezing of assets not only impinges upon the
petitioner's lawful right to operate its account but also carries
grave civil consequences for the petitioner's business operations.
3.3. Upon a careful and thorough examination of the facts, this
Court is inclined to find that the learned CJM, Jalore erred in
permitting an indiscriminate freeze on the entire bank account,
without duly considering the proportionality of such a drastic
measure or providing adequate justification for the decision. The
freezing order was not only a disproportionate response but also
failed to specifically address which funds were allegedly linked to
the alleged offence, leaving the petitioner at an unfair
disadvantage.
3.4. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds it necessary to allow
the present petition and set aside the impugned order passed by
the learned CJM, Jalore.
4. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Writ Petition is allowed and
the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned CJM, Jalore
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 02:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13399] (4 of 4) [CRLW-1100/2026]
freezing the petitioner's bank account is quashed and set aside,
and the account of the petitioner shall be immediately defreezed.
The petitioner shall be free to operate its bank accounts in
accordance with the applicable legal framework.
4.1. However, it is pertinent to note that in the event the
petitioner asserts that the funds debited or withheld from the bank
account do not bear any nexus to the alleged fraudulent activities,
the petitioner may, at its discretion, file an appropriate application
before the competent Magistrate seeking the refund of the amount
in question. Upon such an application being presented, the learned
Magistrate shall expeditiously consider the matter and pass a
reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with the law.
4.2. The stay petition and all pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
444-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 02:56:34 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
