ORDER : 1. Heard learned senior counsel Sri Ranjit Kumar for learned counsel for petitioners Sri Sai Prasen Gundavarapu and learned Government Pleader for Home, and learned counsel Sri J.Sudheer for impleaded respondent No.3. 2. The writ petition is directed against the request placed by the Investigating Officer of Economic Offences Wing of the Crime Investigating Department of the State Government on HDFC bank to freeze the bank accounts opened and operated by the petitioners in connection with Crime No. 22 of 2016 registered under Sections 409, 420, 477 (A) of IPC and Section 37 of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 on 29.9.2016. 3. Facts to the extent necessary are noted hereunder: (i) Petitioners 1 to 7 are claimed to be engaged in activities related to charitable purposes and provide employment to 2139 number of people. The 8th petitioner is a Trustee of petitioner Nos. 1 and 6, Director of petitioner Nos. 2, 4 and 7 and President of petitioner Nos. 3 and 5. (ii) On a complaint lodged by Sri Gowripaga Albbert Lael, Crime No.22 of 2016 was registered in the Crime Investigation Department of the State of Telangana on 29.9.2016 under Sections 409, 420, 477 (A) of IPC and Section 37 of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010. The complainant, who worked as Chief Financial Officer for Operation Mobilization (OM) India Group of Charities, alleged that persons named in the complaint deceitfully indulged in mass embezzlement of public funds, maintaining forged accounts, falsification of accounts and causing huge loss to the beneficiaries from underprivileged communities, particularly dalits. Operation Mobilization India Group of Charities and 8th petitioner are shown as accused along with others. The Economic Offences wing of the Crime Investigation Department has taken up the investigation. (iii) Registration of Crime No.22 of 2016 was assailed in W.P.No.40742 of 2016, primarily on the ground that on similar allegations earlier also complaint was filed by one Sri Ratnakar, registered as Crime No.350 of 2012. On through investigation, it was closed. Therefore, this complaint on the self same allegations is not maintainable. It was urged that filing another complaint is nothing but harassment and witch hunting by disgruntled ex-employees. Learned single Judge of this Court upheld registration of the complaint and dismissed the writ petition by judgment rendered on 30.7.2017. S.L.P.(Criminal) No.3888 of 2017 against this decision was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 12.9.2017. It was urged that filing another complaint is nothing but harassment and witch hunting by disgruntled ex-employees. Learned single Judge of this Court upheld registration of the complaint and dismissed the writ petition by judgment rendered on 30.7.2017. S.L.P.(Criminal) No.3888 of 2017 against this decision was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 12.9.2017. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed completion of investigation expeditiously. (iv) On 21.11.2020, the Officer of Economic Offences Wing of the Crime Investigation Department investigating into the Crime No.22 of 2016 issued notice under Sections 91 and 160 of Cr.P.C., to the Branch Manager of the HDFC Bank, Pet Basheerabad Branch, Jeedimetla, Medchal-Malkajgiri district requesting him to furnish the statement of accounts, details of Fixed Deposits, Know Your Customer particulars of the account holders and also to freeze the accounts and fixed deposits mentioned in the notice. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL: 4. Submissions of learned senior counsel Sri. Ranjit Kumar for petitioners: (i) Learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned notice was issued under Sections 91 and 160 of Cr.P.C., and in the said notice itself the investigating officer directs the Bank to freeze the bank accounts. According to the learned senior counsel, Section 91 Cr.P.C. deals with summons to produce document or other things, and Section 160 Cr.P.C., deals with Police Officer’s power to require attendance of the witnesses. But, these provisions are not applicable to freeze the bank accounts, whereas impugned notice does not refer to Section 102 Cr.P.C. Thus, the very invocation of power is vitiated. Petitioners have right to open bank accounts and operate bank accounts as per their convenience. While seeking to deprive this right, it is mandatory for the investigating officer to strictly comply with the requirements of law. (ii) It is further contended that compliance of Section 102 Cr.P.C., in all respects is mandatory. In the case on hand, notice of seizure was not issued under Section 102 Cr.P.C. No notice served on account holders and seizure of bank accounts was not reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate. More so, Section 102 Cr.P.C., requires to report freezing of bank accounts forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate. (iii) Regarding seizure and obtaining permission to seize, misleading statements are made before this Court. More so, Section 102 Cr.P.C., requires to report freezing of bank accounts forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate. (iii) Regarding seizure and obtaining permission to seize, misleading statements are made before this Court. The document at page No.30 filed in the respondent-Police counter affidavit paper book is an application submitted by the investigating officer to the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to grant permission to freeze the accounts. It bears the signature of the investigating officer dated 21.11.2020. In the body of the said document, there is narration of details obtained from HDFC bank on 03.12.2020. He would submit that it is not possible for the investigating officer to file an application on 21.11.2020 by referring to the subsequent correspondence. It is antedated only to show as if prior approval was obtained from the learned Magistrate. This clearly shows that misleading statements are made only to cover up their misdeeds. It is also apparent that no permission was obtained before freezing the bank accounts. This also brings out that no intimation was given to the learned Magistrate on freezing of bank accounts. He further submitted that no details are furnished while making a request to freeze bank accounts, whereas while freezing the bank accounts under Section 102 Cr.P.C., it must be clearly stated which bank accounts are sought to be freezed. Thus, entire exercise is vitiated. (iv) He further submitted that many of the bank accounts, which are now freezed, deal with foreign contributions and these bank accounts are governed by the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA). Under this Act, accounts can be freezed only by the Central Government and the State Police have no such power. Therefore, freezing of bank accounts which are governed by the FCRA is per se illegal, without jurisdiction and competence. (v) Petitioners run several schools and have more than 2000 employees on their rolls. Because of the freezing of bank accounts, their salary and allowances are not paid for two months and the employees are suffering for no fault of them. He denies the assertions of respondents in the counter-affidavit that petitioners have other bank accounts, from where the salary and allowances can be paid to their employees. (vi) He further submitted that no prior notice or opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before freezing the bank accounts. Freezing bank accounts takes away the right of account holder to operate his/her bank account. (vi) He further submitted that no prior notice or opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before freezing the bank accounts. Freezing bank accounts takes away the right of account holder to operate his/her bank account. It is elementary to put the account holder on notice prior to freezing of his bank account. This cordial principle is violated while freezing the bank accounts of the petitioners. If only opportunity was afforded, petitioners would have explained their stand and satisfied that there is no misuse of public funds as alleged and public funds are not diverted and misused. Without even doing a preliminary exercise of how the alleged misappropriation/transfer of funds were made illegally, several bank accounts of the petitioners are freezed, causing lot of hardship and suffering. At any rate, there is no justification to freeze the fixed deposits. (vii)According to the learned senior counsel, petitioners have complied the mandate of FCRA and all other statutory requirements. Regular audit on all activities of the organization take place and certified by the Charted Accountant. The organizations are regularly filing the income tax returns and with the Registrar of Companies. Petitioners are operating the bank accounts in a transparent manner. (viii) He would submit that there is no occasion or necessity to freeze the bank accounts. The detailed statements of bank accounts were obtained long ago. The petitioners are cooperating with the investigation and whatever information is required is being furnished. Therefore, there is no justification to freeze the bank accounts. (ix) He further submitted that due to freezing of the bank accounts the welfare activities conducted by the organization are affected causing hardship to several beneficiaries. 5. Submissions of learned Government Pleader for Home: (i) Per contra, according to the learned Government Pleader, Section 457 Cr.P.C., provides for the accused to apply to the jurisdictional Magistrate to de-freeze the bank accounts and when the petitioners have effective and efficacious statutory remedy, writ petition is not maintainable. (ii) There is no requirement to give prior notice or afford opportunity of hearing before freezing the bank accounts. As can be seen from the language employed in Section 102 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary to have concrete proof of involvement of the bank accounts in the crime and on mere suspicion, the investigating officer can freeze the bank accounts. (ii) There is no requirement to give prior notice or afford opportunity of hearing before freezing the bank accounts. As can be seen from the language employed in Section 102 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary to have concrete proof of involvement of the bank accounts in the crime and on mere suspicion, the investigating officer can freeze the bank accounts. He would submit that as per the material collected so far, it appears that the funds belonging to the organizations are misused and diverted for private purposes. (iii) He points out that the organizations are not working properly and several irregularities are committed. On the allegation of violation of the FCRA, Government of India, suspended the registration of Operation Mobilization India and also freezed the bank accounts. Thus, petitioners do not have good track record and if the bank accounts are allowed to be de-freezed, even before investigation is completed, there is every possibility that the accused would divert the funds to other accounts and siphon the funds of the organizations. At that stage, it will be difficult to trace the flow of crime money. (iv) He further submitted that in Crime No.22 of 2016 violation of Section 37 of the FCRA is also included. Legality of the FIR is upheld by this Court and affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is no more open to petitioners to raise this issue. Merely because certain bank accounts are opened to receive and regulate the foreign contributions, governed by the FCRA, does not take away the power of the State Police to freeze the bank accounts in connection with a crime. (v) On the aspect of delay in completing the investigation, he would submit that petitioners were litigating and obstructing the investigation. They are not cooperating for early conclusion of the investigation. Large volume of documents are required to be examined to assess the allegations leveled in the crime. Further, having regard to the pandemic situation, the regular work of investigation also affected. (vi) He further submitted that according to the information, petitioners have 150 bank accounts in various banks, but only 26 are freezed. Out of which, 12 are governed by the FCRA and some of them were also freezed by the Central Government. Police are trying to trace the other bank accounts. (vi) He further submitted that according to the information, petitioners have 150 bank accounts in various banks, but only 26 are freezed. Out of which, 12 are governed by the FCRA and some of them were also freezed by the Central Government. Police are trying to trace the other bank accounts. Therefore, the contentions that the work of petitioners is crippled and that petitioners are unable to pay salaries is not valid, but is only invented to gain sympathy from this Court. (vii) With reference to the contention on discrepancy in the date of filing application before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, learned Government Pleader submitted that it is a typographical mistake and petitioners are trying to take advantage of this typographical mistake and divert the issue. Counter to the rejoinder is filed by the respondents explaining their stand. 6. Submissions of learned counsel Sri J.Sudheer for respondent No.3: (i) Learned counsel submitted that having found grave illegalities committed by the people managing the affairs of Operation Mobilization India Group of Charities, respondent No. 3 has lodged complaint. Based on his complaint only, crime is registered and in the course of investigation, having found prima facie, that money belonging to the Operation Mobilization India being diverted into various accounts for personal purposes, Police have freezed the bank accounts. There is no illegality in the action taken by the Police. It is within the power of investigating officer to freeze the bank accounts. (ii) He further submitted that petitioners have come to this court with unclean hands. By taking through the decision by the NCLT, he submitted that NCLT has not decided on merits. With reference to payment of salaries, he submitted that every school has a separate account. The petitioners are collecting fee from the students. The petitioners have opened several bank accounts and diverted funds into those accounts. There are enough funds available in those accounts to pay salaries to the employees. The investigating officer cannot make a distinction between the accounts, from which salaries are paid and other accounts, more so, even before investigation is completed. 7. Response by learned senior counsel: (i)In reply, learned senior counsel Sri Ranjith Kumar highlighted the mistakes in the application filed before the Magistrate as well as the averments in the counter-affidavit and sought to contend that it was not a typographical mistake, but the application itself is antedated. 7. Response by learned senior counsel: (i)In reply, learned senior counsel Sri Ranjith Kumar highlighted the mistakes in the application filed before the Magistrate as well as the averments in the counter-affidavit and sought to contend that it was not a typographical mistake, but the application itself is antedated. It was not filed on 21.11.2020. The investigating officer has made false statement and to cover up his mistakes, he made personal remarks on the senior counsel which is wholly uncalled for. He further submitted that there is no explanation offered in the so called counter to the rejoinder on the discrepancy in the dates, but went on to make new averments which is not permissible. (ii) He further submitted that as illegalities are all pervading in invoking power under Section 102 (1) of Cr.P.C., in freezing the bank accounts, writ petition is maintainable. ISSUE: 8. Shorn of lengthy pleadings, voluminous documents, elaborate submissions, sometimes debate touching on individuals, diverting from the issue, the issue for consideration is in a narrow compass, i.e., whether the Investigating Officer exceeded his jurisdiction to freeze the bank accounts of the petitioners in connection with Crime No. 22 of 2016. CONSIDERATION: 9. Whenever, a crime is reported, Police are duty bound to investigate into the crime. The Code of Criminal Procedure guides the investigating officer on how to investigate into the crime. It vests in him wide range of powers, to gather evidence and to ascertain whether, primafacie, crime is committed by the accused. Per force, he is entitled to examine the issue in all aspects. The scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that the Investigating Officer must be given freedom to investigate to ascertain whether crime is committed by the accused and at that stage no interference is called for. By very nature, police suspect every step of the accused and deeply scrutinize his conduct and every aspect of a property to test whether he committed the crime and concerned property is a crime property/used to commit crime. In offences touching upon misappropriation, diversion of funds, etc., the scrutiny by the Investigating Officer is focused on the flow of money. In the process of investigation, it is within the competence of Investigating Officer to seize the properties/to freeze the bank accounts of the accused. In offences touching upon misappropriation, diversion of funds, etc., the scrutiny by the Investigating Officer is focused on the flow of money. In the process of investigation, it is within the competence of Investigating Officer to seize the properties/to freeze the bank accounts of the accused. It is also appropriate to note that the Code of Criminal Procedure provides enough safeguards to the accused and vests wide powers in the Magistrate Court to monitor and regulate the investigation, wherever the learned Magistrate notices illegalities/irregularities in the investigation. 10. The evidence collected by the investigating officer is only to make out a prima facie case of committing crime by the accused. Based on said assessment, Police file final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. If the Magistrate is satisfied that prima facie crime is made out by the police, learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the crime and places the accused for trial. 11. In State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered various aspects concerning registration of crimes, investigation, right of an accused, etc. For the purpose of the case on hand, it is apt to note the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under dealing with the investigation by the Police: “38. The Privy Council in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [ AIR 1945 PC 18 : 71 IA 203 : 46 Cri LJ 413] while dealing with the statutory right of the police under Sections 154 and 156 of the Code within its province of investigation of a cognizable offence has made the following observation: (AIR p. 22) “... so it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry. In India as has been shown there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The Junctions of the judiciary and the police are complementary net overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491, CrPC to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however, the court's functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then.” 40. The core of the above sections namely 156, 157 and 159 of the Code is that if a police officer has reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, he must either proceed with the investigation or cause an investigation to be proceeded with by his subordinate; that in a case where the police officer sees no sufficient ground for investigation, he can dispense with the investigation altogether; that the field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within the domain of the investigating agencies over which the courts cannot have control and have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions relating to investigation and that it is only in a case wherein a police officer decides not to investigate an offence, the concerned Magistrate can intervene and either direct an investigation or in the alternative, if he thinks fit, he himself can, at once proceed or depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed to hold a preliminary inquiry into or otherwise to dispose of the case in the manner provided in the Code.” 60. The sum and substance of the above deliberation results in a conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as aforementioned. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance, has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution. It needs no emphasis that no one can demand absolute immunity even if he is wrong and claim unquestionable right and unlimited powers exercisable up to unfathomable cosmos. Any recognition of such power will be tantamount to recognition of ‘Divine Power’ which no authority on earth can enjoy.” (emphasis supplied) 12. At the stage of investigation, per force, taking the accused into confidence and disclose how the investigation is conducted does not arise. In fact, the investigation has to be conducted secretly and no scope is given to alert the accused. Any indication on scope of investigation may induce the accused to wipe out the evidence. Thus, principle ‘Audi Alteram Partem’ is not attracted. 13. At the stage of investigation, investigating officer only suspects that the property in issue, in this case the bank accounts and money kept in fixed deposits, may be connected to the crime. At this stage, the investigating officer need not come to a firm opinion, on such link. Therefore, at the stage of freezing of bank accounts and fixed deposits no reasons need be assigned. In fact, assigning reasons may be counter productive to the investigation. After the investigation is completed, the Investigation Officer files final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. In the said report, he has to explain all the steps taken by him while conducting investigation. In this case that stage has not reached. At this stage, it cannot be predicated that the investigation officer would not deal with freezing of bank accounts. 14. After the investigation is completed, the Investigation Officer files final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. In the said report, he has to explain all the steps taken by him while conducting investigation. In this case that stage has not reached. At this stage, it cannot be predicated that the investigation officer would not deal with freezing of bank accounts. 14. It is apt to note the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260: “89. When the investigating officer is not deciding any matter except collecting the materials for ascertaining whether a prima facie case is made out or not and a full enquiry in case of filing a report under Section 173(2) follows in a trial before the Court or Tribunal pursuant to the filing of the report, it cannot be said that at that stage rule of audi alteram partem superimposes an obligation to issue a prior notice and hear the accused which the statute does not expressly recognise. The question is not whether audi alteram partem is implicit, but whether the occasion for its attraction exists at all. 90. Under the scheme of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there are various provisions under which no prior notice or opportunity of being heard is conferred as a matter of course to an accused person while the proceeding is in the stage of an investigation by a police officer. xxx 92. More so, the accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation. Save under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of right during the course of the investigation of a case instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code or in a proceeding instituted otherwise than on a police report till the process is issued under Section 204 of the Code, as the case may be. Even in cases where cognizance of an offence is taken on a complaint notwithstanding that the said offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the accused has no right to have participation till the process is issued. Even in cases where cognizance of an offence is taken on a complaint notwithstanding that the said offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the accused has no right to have participation till the process is issued. In case the issue of process is postponed as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused may attend the subsequent inquiry but cannot participate. There are various judicial pronouncements to this effect but we feel that it is not necessary to recapitulate those decisions. At the same time, we would like to point out that there are certain provisions under the Code empowering the Magistrate to give an opportunity of being heard under certain specified circumstances.” (emphasis supplied) 15. The petitioners were unsuccessful in aborting the crime No. 22 of 2016 registered against them on the complaint filed by Sri Gowripaga Albert Lael. He made sweeping allegations against the persons named in the complaint, that accused deceitfully indulged in mass embezzlement of public funds; maintaining forged accounts; fabrication of accounts; diversion of trust funds into private investments, etc. To investigate into these allegations, Police may require to look into manner of operating the bank accounts and flow of money in and out of the accounts and to freeze the bank accounts/fixed deposits if they suspect flow of money connected to the crime. 16. The power to freeze the bank account is traceable to Section 102[Section 102. Power of police officer to seize certain property. (1) Any police officer, may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. (2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. (1) Any police officer, may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. (2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. (3) Every police officer acting under Sub-Section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be, conveniently transported to the Court or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same. Provided that where the property seized under Sub-Section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.] of Cr.P.C. It is beyond pale of doubt that the bank account is also a ‘property’ and falls within the ambit of Section 102 of Cr.P.C. From the plain language of this section, it is apparent that as part of investigation property can be seized if the property in issue may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of offence. As part of investigation, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to preserve the property suspected to have been connected to the crime so that evidence is not tampered/destroyed frustrating the investigation and trial. 17. In Navada Properties Private Limited Vs State of Maharastra, (2019) 20 SCC 119 the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code. To the extent relevant paragraph-20 reads as under: “30……….. 17. In Navada Properties Private Limited Vs State of Maharastra, (2019) 20 SCC 119 the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code. To the extent relevant paragraph-20 reads as under: “30……….. Equally important, for the purpose of interpretation is the scope and object of Section 102 of the Code, which is to help and assist investigation and to enable the police officer to collect and collate evidence to be produced to prove the charge complained of and set up in the charge sheet. The Section is a part of the provisions concerning investigation undertaken by the police officer, After the charge sheet is filed, the prosecution leads and produces evidence to secure conviction. Section 102 is not, per se, an enabling provision by which the police officer acts to seize the property to do justice and to hand over the property to a person whom the police officer feels is the rightful and true owner. This is clear from the objective behind Section 102, use of the words in the Section and the scope and ambit of the power conferred on the Criminal Court vide Sections 451 to 459 of the Code. 31. The expression ‘circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence’ in Section 102 does not refer to a firm opinion or an adjudication/finding by a police officer to ascertain whether or not ‘any property’ is required to be seized. The word ‘suspicion’ is a weaker and a broader expression than ‘reasonable belief or ‘satisfaction’. The police officer is an investigator and not an adjudicator or a decision maker”(emphasis supplied) 18. It is thus beyond pale of doubt that Investigating Officer has amplitude of powers to investigate into a crime and in the process unearth evidence to support the charge or otherwise. In the process he can also look into the banking transactions, in a given case, to freeze the bank accounts. Having regard to law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal and Navada Properties, the scope of consideration by the Writ Court on how investigating officer is conducting investigation is in a narrow compass and only in exceptional circumstances, Court may exercise power of judicial review. This case does not fall into the exceptional category for this Court to interject the investigation, in exercise of power of judicial review. 19. This case does not fall into the exceptional category for this Court to interject the investigation, in exercise of power of judicial review. 19. Investigating Officer asserts that third party forensic audit conducted so far revealed that the accused diverted funds to dubious accounts. As per the assertions of the investigating officer in the counter-affidavit, the range of investigation is wide and covers several states and outside the country and is yet to complete the investigation. He asserts that the accounts now attached are suspicious and dubious in nature. He has justified reasons for delay in concluding the investigation, primarily pointing out to lack of cooperation by the accused and scope of investigation. 20. The investigation is not completed. As per the assertion in the counter-affidavit-Police are in the process of examining various aspects to ascertain whether there was diversion of money, if so, how much where and when. Further, they assert that there are several other bank accounts whereas, so far, the police are not able to trace them. In the mean while suspected properties have to be protected from destruction, wiping out evidence and swindling away the money, frustrating the investigation. 21. At the stage of investigation, in exercise of power of judicial review writ Court cannot go into the merits of the issues involved in the crime. Unless registration of crime perse is held as not justified, court cannot restraint the investigating officer from exercising his powers to investigate and look for all possible clues to unearth the crime. As a corollary, this Court can not direct the Investigating Officer to abort freezing the bank accounts. Prima facie, in the facts of this case, it can not be said that freezing of bank accounts was in excess of power vested in the Investigating Officer. In exercise of equitable and discretionary jurisdiction, Court cannot invite a situation that will impinge upon unearthing crime and frustrate the investigation. When Court is confronted with the claim against freezing the bank account, on various grounds as urged in this writ petition, vis-a-vis the suspicion of diversion of money directly attributable to crime, the Court has to lien in favour of allowing the Police Officer to continue his investigation and not to interfere with his decision to freeze the bank accounts per se. 22. 22. It is appropriate to note that Section 457 of Cr.P.C., enables aggrieved person to file application before the jurisdictional Magistrate praying to defreeze bank account(s) freezed by the Investigating Officer in exercise of power under Section 102(1) of Cr.P.C, in connection with a crime. 23. Though, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the jurisdiction of the writ Court is very wide and all pervading. Wherever and whenever, by the conduct/decision of a public authority, rights of a person are infringed, the writ Court will extend its long arm of justice. But the constitutional Courts are slow in entertaining the writ petitions where statutory scheme envisages certain procedures on an issue and aggrieved party has statutorily engrafted remedies to seek redress. 24. Freezing of bank accounts/fixed deposits is a necessary concomitant when the police suspect them to have been involved in a pending crime. When a bank account is freezed in the process of investigating into a crime, no accused can say that his right is infringed and knock the doors of this Court straight away without availing statutorily engrafted remedy. 25. The subject bank accounts suspected to be are the crime properties in Crime No.22 of 2016. The Code of Criminal Procedure vests powers in the Magistrate to regulate the investigation into a crime, including the prima facie justification to seize a property, delay in investigation and can monitor the progress of investigation. Section 457[Section 457: Procedure by police upon seizure of property. (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.] vests power in the Magistrate to deal with the property involved in a crime as deemed proper and necessary. In exercise of power of judicial review, writ Court cannot trench into the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate to deal with the crime property, and if satisfied, order for release of crime property on the grounds as urged in this writ petition. Petitioners are not precluded from availing the said remedy. This is an effective and efficacious remedy. 26. Voluminous material is brought on record and extensive submissions are made taking into merits of the case. Submissions made dealt with the nature of social service undertaken by writ petitioners; the role of 8th petitioner and his associates; how money is flowing into various accounts; how money is utilized; whether money is transferred to foreign accounts; how investigation is conducted; opening of bank accounts exclusively dealing with foreign contributions; Role of State Police in investigating into accounts governed by the FCRA; that State Police have no competence to deal with such accounts; that foreign contributions are diverted for illegal purposes; that more than 150 bank accounts are opened by petitioners to divert organizations funds for personal gain; that freezing of bank accounts affected payment of monthly salary to employees; that Investigating Officer has not applied his mind and satisfied that ingredients of seizure are complied; that there is delay in investigation; conversely that there is enough justification for the delay in completing the investigation; and there was no need to seize the bank accounts. It was also contended that Section 102 was observed in breach. There was no prior consent and no intimation of freezing the bank accounts to the jurisdictional magistrate. It was also contended that Section 102 was observed in breach. There was no prior consent and no intimation of freezing the bank accounts to the jurisdictional magistrate. In exercise of power of judicial review, writ Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact and assertions, which per force require recording a finding/arriving at a decision on merits, moreover, when issue is at the stage of investigation into a crime. The accused can raise all such pleas, before the learned Magistrate. Magistrate will be in a better position to appreciate all aspects and take a decision on justification to freeze bank accounts. 27. In Mohd. Maqbool Ahmed @ Mateen and another Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Investigation Team, Hyderabad and others, 1996 (3) ALT 215 (D.B) Division Bench of this Court affirmed the view taken by the Madras High Court in Bharat Overseas Bank vs. Minu Publications, 1988 (2) Crimes 156. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench reads as under: “On the question as to the failure on the part of the police officer to report the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C, the learned Judge held: "Not every flaw in investigation, would invalidate proceedings. It would be premature now, to judge prejudice caused to the accused. If the second respondent has not reported about the seizure to the Court yet, he shall do the same forthwith. In the event of a trial, it would be open to the accused to put forward this plea of prejudice in the light of the facts available." In our considered opinion, this is the correct legal position. So far as the present case is concerned, there is no allegation in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the requirement of Sub-section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C., was breached. For the first time in the reply affidavit, this plea was taken and the learned Government Pleader contends, rightly, that the averments in the reply affidavit cannot be the basis for the writ petition. For the first time in the reply affidavit, this plea was taken and the learned Government Pleader contends, rightly, that the averments in the reply affidavit cannot be the basis for the writ petition. Even assuming that mere was non-compliance of the requirement of Sub-section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C., in that the police officer has not informed the jurisdictional Magistrate about the factum of seizing of the bank accounts of the petitioners herein, such a course of action would not invalidate the order passed Under Sub-section (1) of Section 102 Cr.P.C, freezing the bank accounts. We make it clear that it is always open to the petitioners to move the criminal Court after the charge-sheet is filed for appropriate orders as to the handling of bank accounts and the criminal Court will pass suitable orders in the light of the fact situation.” (Emphasis supplied) 28. Learned senior counsel contended that after the seizure of bank accounts petitioners are left with no money at their disposal and they are not in a position to pay salary to their employees. This was controverted by learned Government Pleader and learned counsel Sri J.Sudheer by contending that petitioners have several other bank accounts and have stashed crores of rupees in those accounts, and only deliberately not paying the salary to gain sympathy from the Court. Having regard to rival submissions, no opinion is expressed as this aspect also and leave it to petitioners, if so advised, to urge before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 29. It is vehemently contended that the bank accounts, which are opened to deal with the foreign contributions, are also freezed and the same cannot be freezed. According to the learned senior counsel, foreign contributions are regulated by the FRCA. Under FRCA, power is vested only in the Central Government and, therefore, State Police have no power to freeze. 30. No provision in FRCA is brought to my notice, which imposes restriction on State Police to freeze bank accounts which also deal with foreign contributions as part of the investigation into the crime, and in exercise of power under Section 102 Cr.P.C. The FRCA vests power in the Central Government to regulate foreign contributions and also to investigate misuse of such contributions. Section 102 Cr.P.C. is comprehensive and covers all situations whenever allegation of embezzlement of funds, falsification of accounts and creation of dubious bank accounts to divert the money, is made in a crime. Incidentally, such investigation may touch upon the examination of bank accounts opened to receive foreign contributions. There is no overlapping of powers. FRCA does not impose restrictions on the exercise of power by the investigating officer under Section 102 Cr.P.C., with reference to any other crime. It is also appropriate to note that Crime No. 22 of 2016 is also registered under Section 37 of FRCA and validity of registration of crime is upheld by this Court and affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise, power of State Police to investigate into accounts dealing with foreign contributions is not in issue in this case and the issue is confined to freezing of bank accounts in connection with Crime No. 22 of 2016. Further, it is also not the case of petitioners that on the same issue investigation is being conducted by the Central Government. I, therefore, see no merit in the contention of learned senior counsel. 31. Extensive submissions were made on discrepancies in the dates mentioned in the application filed before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Nampally, Hyderabad, filed in the counter affidavit paper book from pages 30 to 32. According to learned senior counsel for petitioners, even before the application to accord sanction to freeze bank accounts was made to the learned Magistrate, Bank accounts were freezed and same is illegal. He further submitted that this document is antedated as it refers to correspondence from the HDFC bank dated 3.12.2020, whereas the document claimed to have been signed on 21.11.2020. He further submitted that specific data of which accounts sought to be freezed is not stated in the said application and such application cannot be vague. He therefore submitted that the entire exercise is vitiated. 32. Section 102 Cr.P.C. does not require the investigating officer to seek leave of the jurisdictional Magistrate to seize a property in connection with a crime. Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. only requires the investigating officer concerned to report seizure of property, after the seizure, to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He therefore submitted that the entire exercise is vitiated. 32. Section 102 Cr.P.C. does not require the investigating officer to seek leave of the jurisdictional Magistrate to seize a property in connection with a crime. Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. only requires the investigating officer concerned to report seizure of property, after the seizure, to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Thus, whether an application was filed before or on the date of freezing of the accounts or such application is antedated has no legal significance and is not fatal to vitiate the decision to freeze the bank accounts. Power to seize a bank account on suspicion of involvement in a crime is plenary, intimation of such seizure is incidental to exercise of such power. 33. Section 102 (3) only requires the Investigating Officer to forthwith intimate seizure of property to the jurisdictional Magistrate. There is no decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court on what is meant by the word ‘forthwith’ employed in Section 102 (3). The word ‘forthwith’ is employed in several enactments. Scope of this word as employed in Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971; Preventive Detention Act, 1950; Section 157 (1) of Cr.P.C.; Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. From these precedents, guidance can be taken on enunciation of law on the word ‘forthwith’. 34. The word ‘forthwith’ is of elastic import (Kesher Nilkanth Joglekar Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay - AIR 1957 SC 28 ). The legislative mandate cannot be measured mathematically in terms of seconds, minutes and hours. Administrative exigencies may on occasions render a post-haste compliance impossible and, therefore, a reasonable allowance has to be made for unavoidable delays. The rule of strict construction is no justification for holding that the act be performed ‘forthwith’ must be performed the very instant afterwards without any intervening interval of time or that it should be performed simultaneously with the other act. “10. Thus, ‘forthwith’ does not connote a precise time and even if the statute under consideration requires that the report shall be made forthwith, its terms shall have been complied with if the report is made without available or unreasonable delay.” [Sk.Salim vs. The State of West Bengal - AIR 1975 SC 602 ]. “10. Thus, ‘forthwith’ does not connote a precise time and even if the statute under consideration requires that the report shall be made forthwith, its terms shall have been complied with if the report is made without available or unreasonable delay.” [Sk.Salim vs. The State of West Bengal - AIR 1975 SC 602 ]. “This apart, it is a matter of common experience that there has been tremendous rise in the crime resulting into enormous volume of work, but increase in the Police force has not been made in the same proportion. In view of the aforesaid factors, the expression forthwith’ within the meaning of Section 157(1) of Cr.P.C., obviously cannot mean that the prosecution is required to explain every hour’s delay in sending the first information report to the Magistrate, of course, the same has to be sent with reasonable despatch, which would obviously mean within a reasonable possible time in the circumstances prevailing” [paragraph-9, Alla China Apparao and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh - AIR 2002 SC 3648 ]. The meaning of the word ‘forthwith’ is synonymous of the word immediately, which means with all reasonable quickness, speed and expedition, prompt time with a sense of urgency, without any unavoidable delay. No hard and fast rule can be laid nor a particular period be prescribed. [Paragraph-9, Rao Mahmood Ahmed Khan vs. Ranbir Singh - AIR 1995 SC 2195 ; Paragraph-9, Nevalshankar Ishwarlal Deva and others vs. State of Gujarat - AIR 1994 SC 1496 ]. 35. From the basketful of decisions on what is meant by ‘forthwith’ it can be culled out that it means ‘as soon as may be’, ‘with reasonable speed and expedition’, with a sense of urgency’ and ‘without any unavoidable delay’. In other words, it does not mean instantaneous, the moment when a decision is made/simultaneous. 36. In the case on hand, bank accounts were freezed on 21.11.2020 and immediately thereafter this writ petition is filed. Thus, by the time this writ petition is filed, it cannot be said, there was inordinate delay in intimating to the Magistrate, so as to vitiate the freezing of bank accounts on that ground. Be that as it may, as noticed above and as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Thus, by the time this writ petition is filed, it cannot be said, there was inordinate delay in intimating to the Magistrate, so as to vitiate the freezing of bank accounts on that ground. Be that as it may, as noticed above and as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Maqbool Ahmed seizure is not vitiated on the ground that the Magistrate was not informed and the same can be urged during the trial. 37. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to note on ill drafted affidavit. A rejoinder to the reply affidavit is filed trying to explain how discrepancy on dates crept into the application filed before the learned Magistrate (pages 30 to 32 of counter affidavit paper book) and went on to elaborate on various aspects. In the process the deponent also comments on the submissions made by learned senior counsel for petitioners. It is permissible for the counsel representing a party to the litigation to highlight the mistakes/short comings of the opposite party and bring forth alleged illegality and make out a case for his client. It is well within his right for the learned senior counsel to point out the mistakes in the petition presented by the Investigating Officer before the Magistrate. The Investigating Officer was ill advised to make loose comments on such submissions. They are in bad taste. The said comments are directed to be deleted from the Court records and the deponent is warned to be careful in future. 38. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed. 39. It is made clear that there is no expression of opinion on merits. The discussion herein above is to consider the prayer in the writ petition. Petitioners are at liberty to avail appropriate remedy envisaged by the Code of Criminal Procedure.