1 2026:CGHC:18021-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 217 of 2026 Oxyzo Financial Services Ltd A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 2013, Having Its Registered Office At Shop No. G-22C, (UGF) D-1 (K-84), Green Park Main, New Delhi - 110016 Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Ravish Kumar S/o Rakesh Kumar Aged About 28 Presently Posted As Assistant Manager In The Petitioner Company And Having Its Corporate Office At 1st Floor, Tower - A Global Business Park Gurugram, Haryana - 122001 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) -492002 2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarters Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492002 3 - Station House Officer, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District- Raipur (C.G.) -492101 4 - City Superintendent Of Police, Mana, Near Mana Camp Bus Stand Mana Airport Road Raipur Chhattisgarh – 492015 5 - City Superintendent Of Police, Nava Raipur, Police Headqurters, Sector- 19, Rakhi, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492002 6 - Superintendent Of Police, Raipur District Raipur, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001 7 - Reserve Bank Of India, Central Office Building Shahid Bhagat Singh Road Mumbai BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.04.22 16:09:39 +0530 2 8 - Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Wholesale Business Vertical Asset Area 9 5th Floor, Ibis Commercial Block, Hospitality District, Igi Airport, New Delhi - 110037 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Vivek Chopda, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 6/State For Respondent No.7 : : Mr.Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General Mr.Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21.04.2026 1. Heard Mr.Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Vivek Chopda, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 6/State and Mr.Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.7. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :- “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue calling for records and quashing the Impugned Letter dated 13.04.2026 illegally, arbitrarily, and malafidely issued by Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 8 for holding/freezing an amount of Rs. 53,47,17,835/- in the bank account of the Petitioner. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue directing Respondent No. 8 to 3 unconditionally defreeze and remove the hold/lien, if any on the Petitioner's bank account bearing No. 9913203430 in its entirety. 10.3 A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ against Respondent No. 3 as to how they could have frozen a bank account of a lending institution without probable cause or notice; 10.4 A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ against Respondent No. 4 to 6 as to how they could have given approvals and nod to Respondent No. 3 to freeze a bank account of a lending institution without probable cause or notice; 10.5 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue directing Respondent No. 2 to set up a high-level inquiry against Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and take strict disciplinary and penal action against delinquent and errant officials for abuse of process and acting as recovery agents. 10.6 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue against Respondent No. 1 to compensate for the loss of goodwill, reputation, and actual loss of business to the petitioner caused by this persecution. 10.7 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.8 Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 6/State raised an objection that the complainant, who has lodged the FIR, has not been made as a party respondent in the present case. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not required to implead the complainant as a party respondent, as no relief has been sought against the complainant. 4 5. Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant, who has lodged the FIR against the petitioner, has not been impleaded as a party respondent, and in pursuance of the said FIR, the police has freeze the account of the petitioner. Hence, in our opinion, the complainant is a necessary and interested party who ought to be heard before passing any order. The contention raised by learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner is not required to implead the complainant as a party respondent is outrightly rejected and has unnecessarily wasted the precious time of the Court. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed on this ground alone with liberty to file afresh petition impleading the complainant as party respondent, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court and the same shall be transmitted to the Government School for Visual and Hearing Impaired, Tifra, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). 7. Certified copy of the documents annexed with this petition shall be returned to the counsel for the petitioner after retaining the photocopies of the same. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu