Complainant is a necessary party in writ petitions challenging police action freezing bank accounts during investigations.

The petitioner, a financial services company, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a letter dated 13.04.2026 issued by the Station House Officer (Respondent No. 3) to Kotak Mahindra Bank (Respondent No. 8).

This letter directed the freezing of Rs. 53,47,17,835/- in the petitioner’s bank account following the registration of an FIR.

The petitioner sought quashing of the freeze order, a writ of mandamus for the release of funds, and the initiation of a high-level inquiry against police officials.

During the hearing, the State raised a preliminary objection that the original complainant who lodged the FIR was not joined as a party respondent.

1. Whether a writ petition challenging the freezing of a bank account in pursuance of an FIR is maintainable without impleading the original complainant as a necessary party.

The Court applied the procedural principle of "Necessary and Interested Parties" in writ jurisdiction, which dictates that any party whose interests are directly affected by the outcome of a legal proceeding or whose presence is essential for a complete adjudication of the dispute must be impleaded.

The Court effectively held that in matters involving the freezing of accounts arising from criminal complaints, the complainant remains a necessary party despite the petitioner’s claim that no specific relief was sought against them.

The Court examined the petitioner’s contention that the complainant was not a required party as the relief sought was targeted at the actions of the state authorities and the bank.

The Bench rejected this argument, observing that the police action (freezing the account) was a direct consequence of the FIR lodged by the complainant.

The Court reasoned that since the freeze was tied to the underlying criminal allegations, the complainant constitutes a "necessary and interested party" who must be heard before any judicial order regarding the funds is passed.

The Court further noted that the petitioner's refusal to implead the complainant resulted in an unnecessary waste of "precious time of the Court".

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh petition impleading the complainant, subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited in the Registry and subsequently transmitted to the Government School for Visual and Hearing Impaired, Tifra, Bilaspur. The Registry was directed to return original documents to the petitioner upon retention of photocopies.