HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.340/2022 Ramji Lal Sharma S/o Ramnivas, Aged About 43 Years, Adopted Son Late Shri Jai Narayan Sharma Resident Of Near Bus Stand Tunga, Police Station Tunga, Tehsil Bassi District Jaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Station House Officer, Police Station Chaksu, Jaipur City (South) Jaipur. 3. Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 4. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan , Jaipur. 5. Managing Director The Jaipur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jaipur Head Office F-01 Nursery Circle Vaishali Nagar Jaipur Raj. 6. Girraj Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Nand Lal, R/o Village Anatpura P.s. Tunga, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Sharma Mr. Lokendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yogendra Singh Mr. Amit Gupta, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 29/10/2025 1. The instant criminal writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 19.05.2018 by which a request has been made by the Investigating Agency to the bank to de-freeze the bank account of the accused-respondents. (2 of 3) [CRLW-340/2022] 2. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner submits that for the fraudulent act committed by the accused-respondents, an F.I.R. No.147/2017 was registered against them for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC with Police Station Chaksu, District Jaipur City (South), whereby the bank accounts of the accused-respondents were freezed. Learned counsel submits that after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted, but at the instance of the Investigating Officer, the orders have been passed for de-freezing the bank account of the accused-respondents. Learned counsel submits that until conclusion of the trial, the bank account of the accused- respondents should remain freezed, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents opposes the prayer and submits that till date, the accused-respondents have not been held guilty, so until and unless their involvement in the incident is found to be proved, their accounts should not be allowed to be freezed again, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by both sides and looking to the fact that the matter is subjudice before the court, where the accused-respondents are facing trial, at this stage, the relief sought for by the complainant-petitioner cannot be granted as the same would prejudice the case of either side. In case, after (3 of 3) [CRLW-340/2022] trial, the involvement of the accused-respondents is found to be proved, appropriate orders would be passed by the Court concerned. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/66