ORDER : The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief : ??. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.6 Bank to forthwith defreeze Bank accounts Nos.100036987936, 255577889922 and 201008979750 with M/s. Indusind Bank and further permit the petitioner to operate both bank accounts (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents concerned to compensate the petitioner with regard to financial losses occurred on account of illegally imposed hold in the bank accounts Nos.100036987936, 255577889922 and 201008979750 with M/s. Indusind Bank And Bank Accounts Nos.100036987936, 255577889922 and 201008979750 with M/s.Indusind Bank have been frozen pursuant to a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C issued by Investigating Officer/ Inspector, Cyber crime Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate is liable to be set aside and ??. 2. Mr. D. Raghavendar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Crime No.309 of 2022 was registered on 10.05.2022 under Section 120-B, 406, 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC, 35, 6-C, 66-D, 72, 74 of IT Act, 2008. He submits that the unofficial respondent is wife of the petitioner and she has approached the SHO, Cyberabad alleging that the petitioner is her husband and they are blessed with a child and that the petitioner and others have committed fraud, forgery, criminal breach of trust, cheating by impersonation against the company and the complainant and others. Basing on that, a complaint was registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that though they were separated on 16.10.2021, the unofficial respondent herein only with an intention to harass the petitioner has filed a complaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that initially, a notice was issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C. wherein, it was addressed to the Branch Manager of respondent No.6 and in that, they have sought for the information and also asked the bank to seize the bank account. He submits that under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the respondent officers have no authority to seize the account and basing on the said communication received from the respondent police, the bank authorities have seized the petitioner?s account on 18.08.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner has come to know about the same and they have also approached the respondent bank as well as respondent police. Thereafter, the petitioner has come to know about the same and they have also approached the respondent bank as well as respondent police. He submits that Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. stipulates that if the seizure is effected, the same has to be informed to the court forthwith, whereas, in this case, when the seizure was effected on 18.08.2022, the same was informed to the court on 15.09.2022. He submits that he has filed the writ petition on 14.09.2022 and after filing of the writ petition, the same was placed before the Magistrate on 15.09.2022. 4. According to the petitioner, as there is failure to comply with the provisions of 102 Cr.P.C., the entire proceedings are vitiated and as the bank accounts of the petitioner were freezed, lot of prejudice is caused to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order passed by the Gauhati High Court on 07.04.2022 in Crl.Rev.P.37 of 2022 in Pranab Kumar Ghosh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and he submits that in the similar set of facts, when the information was given to the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 102 Cr.P.C after the case is filed before the court, the court has observed that as per Section 102(3) Cr.P.C, the seizure has to be reported to the Magistrate forthwith and as per the material available in the said case that search and seizure was made on 22.06.2021 and the same was informed to the court on 17.08.2021 and the case was filed on 12.08.2021. As compliance of Seton 102(3) Cr.P.C. is mandatory, the same is not followed by the investigating officer and the learned judge has set aside the order 07.12.2021 with a direction to the investigating officer to defreeze the 15 bank accounts in ICICI bank and two bank accounts of Bank of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Swaran Sabharwal vs. Commissioner of Police, (1990) 68 CompCas 652 Delhi, and submits that in the said case also, as there is non-compliance of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C, the proceedings which prevented from operating the bank account were quashed by the court. 7. Relying on those judgements, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that freezing of the petitioner?s bank account is in clear violation of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C which is mandatory in nature. 8. 7. Relying on those judgements, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that freezing of the petitioner?s bank account is in clear violation of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C which is mandatory in nature. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that as per the complaint of respondent No.5, the petitioner and others by misusing the documents have altogether transferred an amount of Rs.24 Crores from 19.10.2021 to 01.05.2022 by playing fraud and basing on that, they have registered the crime and they have issued a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C to the respondent No.6 bank Manager on 18.08.2022 with a request to provide the details of the accounts for further investigation of the case and also requested to freeze the said accounts and intimated the same to the court under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. He submits that they have informed the same to the Magistrate on 15.09.2022. It is submitted that the said case is under investigation and as huge amounts are involved and at this stage, defreezing of the bank accounts and allowing the petitioner to operate the bank accounts will hamper the investigation and if any amounts are withdraw, it will be difficult to recover the same. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has relied on the order passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.11201 of 2021 in Amit Singh vs. State of U.P. and others on 18.04.2022 and submits that scheme of the Code and purport of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C is to give information to the Magistrate regarding seizure of property by the police officer is merely to facilitate its disposal in accordance with law during pendency of trial or subsequent thereto and therefore, non reporting of the seizure forthwith, as provided under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C shall not ipso facto render the seizure illegal particularly as no period is specified and it?s consequences have not been provided and therefore, when on an application moved by the petitioner, the same has been informed, the petitioner may move the concerned Magistrate for the custody of the property i.e. unfreezing of the account of the petitioner, which may be dealt with in accordance with law and on it?s own merit. 10. Mr. Katripati Satyanarayana, learned counsel has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.5. 11. It is settled legal proposition that before freezing the account, the accused is not entitled for a notice. 10. Mr. Katripati Satyanarayana, learned counsel has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.5. 11. It is settled legal proposition that before freezing the account, the accused is not entitled for a notice. Section 102(3) Cr.P.C contemplates that the seizure shall be informed to the court forthwith and once the seizure is informed to the court, the petitioner has a remedy under Section 451 Cr.P.C to make an appropriate application for the interim custody/defreezing of the account. Now, according to the petitioner, as it was not done and the respondent police have not informed the same to the Magistrate forthwith till the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this court and as there is no mandatory compliance of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C, the entire seizure proceedings are vitiated and there should be a direction to the respondents to defreeze the accounts. 12. This court is of conscious of the fact that the word forthwith is used in Section 102(3) Cr.P.C, but, the consequences of such non-compliance are not specified in the Criminal Procedure Code. Even otherwise in this case, as the seizure is not informed to the Magistrate, what is the prejudice caused to the petitioner has also not been stated. The petitioner more on a hyper technical compliance of Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C has come up before this court. 13. Further, while filing an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C, the petitioner can always agitate before the court on these procedural irregularities. Once it has come to the notice of this court that the respondent police have already informed the Magistrate about such seizure and once the court below has got jurisdiction under Section 451 Cr.P.C, petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy. Hence, this court is not inclined to decide the merits of the seizure and the procedure followed i.e. whether mandatory procedure under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C has been followed by the police or not. This court is not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India when there is an alternative remedy available. Further, when grave allegations are made by the complainant saying that her husband has fraudulently transferred an amount of Rs.24 Crores, it would not be appropriate for this court to pass any orders at this stage to defreeze the accounts. 14. The writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy. Further, when grave allegations are made by the complainant saying that her husband has fraudulently transferred an amount of Rs.24 Crores, it would not be appropriate for this court to pass any orders at this stage to defreeze the accounts. 14. The writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy. The court below shall consider the said application without being influenced by any of the observations made by this court as this court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.