ORDER : T. VINOD KUMAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and with their consent the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage. 2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petition and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.4 & 5 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition. 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the 1 st petitioner is a retired employee having worked in ICDS Department, Banswada; that her pension amount was deposited directly into her savings bank account maintained with the 5 th respondent-Bank; and that she is withdrawing the aforesaid amount regularly every month for her medical and personal purposes. 4. It is the further case of the 1 st petitioner that based on a complaint lodged by the 4 th respondent against the 2 nd petitioner herein before the 3 rd respondent alleging that Dwakra Group in her village, of which the 2 nd petitioner is President, took loan of Rs.5 lakhs from SBI bank on 29.01.2019; that all the 10 members of the Group used to repay the loan amount in installment basis @ Rs.2,500/- each, and thus, they have paid Rs.25,000/- every month to the 5 th respondent-Bank; that however, as there was huge crowd at the Bank, they used to pay installment amount to the 2nd petitioner, who used to run the SBI counter service point beside the 5th respondent- SBI bank; and that the 2nd petitioner for the amount paid by the members had given receipts for some time and sometimes used to claim that she will give receipts later. 5. The 1st petitioner further contends that the unofficial respondent has approached the 3rd respondent and lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners herein have not deposited a total amount of Rs.25,06,110/- of 11 groups of Hasanpet Village and requested to take necessary action. 6. The 1st petitioner further contends that basing on the complaint lodged by the 4th respondent on 18.10.2024, the 3rd respondent-police have registered a case vide FIR.No.139/2024 against the 2nd petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 406 of IPC; and that the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused therein. 7. 6. The 1st petitioner further contends that basing on the complaint lodged by the 4th respondent on 18.10.2024, the 3rd respondent-police have registered a case vide FIR.No.139/2024 against the 2nd petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 406 of IPC; and that the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused therein. 7. The 1st petitioner further contends that though she is not arrayed as an accused in the aforesaid crime, the 3rd respondent- authority had issued intimation to the 5th respondent for freezing her savings’ account bearing account No.52180709625 maintained with the 5th respondent-Bank, on account of which, the 1st petitioner is unable to operate her account for withdrawing the monthly pension for her personal needs and medical requirements. 8. The 1st petitioner further contends that since, the 5th respondent had freezed her savings bank account based on the request made by the 3rd respondent, she had approached the 5th respondent-Bank and submitted a representation, dt.03.03.2025, requesting them to defreeze her account and allow the petitioner to withdraw the amount for medical and personal expenses. However, the said request had been rejected/refused by the 5th respondent claiming that unless and until written instructions from the 3rd respondent are received withdrawing the requisition made by them, the 5th respondent-authorities cannot take any action on the request made by the 1st petitioner. 9. Thus, the 1st petitioner seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent to issue necessary instructions to defreeze her account maintained with the 5th respondent-Bank, inasmuch as she has not been arrayed as accused in the crime registered vide FIR.No.139/2024. 10. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the respondents-authorities based on the complaint made by the 4th respondent herein having registered a case vide FIR.No.139/2024 in the course of investigation had found money transactions between the 2nd petitioner and the 1st petitioner, and thus, in order to protect the money, which is alleged to have been misappropriated by the 2nd petitioner, the authorities have addressed letter to the 5th respondent-Bank for freezing of the 1st petitioner’s Bank account maintained with the said Bank. 11. 11. Learned Government Pleader further submits that a Division Bench of this Court, by order dt.05.07.2021 in W.P.No.9689 of 2020 had held that an Investigating Officer has power to seize the account/property in order to require the attendance of the accused in a criminal case including that of any person having connection with the accused in the said crime. 12. Learned Government Pleader further submits that if the 1st petitioner claims of she not having any connection, whatsoever with the 2nd petitioner, she can approach the concerned Magistrate by filing a petition under Section 451 of Cr.P.C./497 of BNSS, seeking de-freezing her account by establishing the fact that there are no money transactions between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner. 13. I have taken note of the respective submissions made. 14. Having regard to the submissions made as above and taking note of the fact that the 1st petitioner has an effective remedy under the provisions of the BNSS, this Court is of the view that the 1st petitioner should be relegated to avail the remedy by approaching the concerned Magistrate seeking de-freezing of the account by establishing her non-involvement in connection with FIR.No.139/2024. 15. Granting liberty as noted hereinabove, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 16. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.