Defreezing of bank account requires proof of freezing; writ relief failed for non-joinder, pending investigation, and unmet undertaking.

A writ petition seeking quashing of an order refusing defreezing of a bank account and a direction to defreeze was found unsustainable because the record did not show any material that the investigating agency had frozen any account. The banks where the petitioner held accounts were not impleaded, and no relief was sought against them. Ongoing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC and the petitioner's failure to show compliance with the compromise-related deposit undertaking also weighed against relief. In the absence of proof of freezing, no order for defreezing could be passed, and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the order refusing defreezing of the bank account and a direction to defreeze the account was maintainable and deserved to be allowed.

Analysis: The record did not show any material to establish that the investigating agency had frozen any bank account. It was also noted that the banks with which the petitioner held accounts were not impleaded, and no relief was sought against them. Further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was stated to be in progress, and the petitioner had not shown compliance with the compromise-related deposit undertaking.

Conclusion: No order for defreezing of any bank account could be passed in the absence of material showing such freezing. The writ petition was held to be without merit and was dismissed.

---