Author name: Sofia Khan

Abstract This paper examines the function and legal application of the “No Objection Certificate in criminal cases. A no-objection certificate is a clearance or green light issued by judicial or governmental authorities that facilitates international travel, employment changes, and visa applications for individuals who are currently subject to ongoing criminal investigation, trial or have any pending case. This blog describes the true meaning of a NOC, when it is helpful, when it is ineffective, and how it can assist with bail, settlement, or quashing procedures. It draws attention to the dangers of depending only on an NOC and offers clients helpful advice so they can navigate criminal cases with knowledge. Introduction A “No Objection Certificate is a written statement/ document where a person declares they have “no objection” to a particular action, such as closing the complaint, granting bail, or settling the dispute.”  A No Objection Certificate demonstrates the individual’s bona fide intention to cooperate with the investigation and offers reasonable assurance of non-absconding. It functions as a mechanism to equilibrate the demands of criminal investigation with the individual’s right to unrestricted movement, while protecting the State’s interest in ensuring the accused’s attendance in court proceedings.  What Is an NOC and What Does It Legally Mean? A no-objection certificate is a legal document that the police department or the court itself issues to grant permission to an individual, stating that there is no ongoing criminal case or that they have no objections to an individual’s proposed action. It is easy to obtain NOC for an individual who has no criminal record, but it’s tricky, but not impossible, to obtain a certificate for an individual whose criminal case/ investigation is ongoing. An NOC is neither a judicial order nor a binding directive; it merely reflects the court’s permission aimed at safeguarding an individual’s freedom of movement, ensuring that the pendency of a case does not, by itself, curtail their fundamental right to mobility.   Who Needs an NOC and Who Issues It? Most commonly, it is the accused person who requires NOC from the complainant or concerned party to show there is no objection to a particular action (e.g., bail, settlement, travel). Complainant can also seek an NOC when he no longer wishes to pursue a private dispute, when he has agreed on a settlement, or when he has no problem with bail or closure of the case. In specific situations, third parties like an employer, Institution, family member or partner can seek NOC respectively for: employment verification, property/ business related disputes and shared assets or for custody related issues. It is important to note here that the Police/courts do not apply for NOCs. NOC is usually requested by the accused and issued by the complainant or affected party. Can an NOC Close the Case, Cancel the FIR, or Stop the Investigation/Trial? If an NOC is issued by the complainant or affected party, it does not mean that FIR has been withdrawn, nor will it stop the investigation or trial from coming to an end. It is the court and the Police who will decide. Usually, in minor or settlement-based disputes Police may consider an NOC because the complainant has “no objection.” But in criminal cases, which are serious in nature and against the state in such cases, criminal cases are driven by the state, not the complainant.  The NOC is not considered proof in court, but rather a supporting document. The court has the authority to decide whether to grant closure, compounding, bail, or quashing. the case, after examination and hearing of all the facts, evidence, and the nature of the offence. In short, the NOC can assist but cannot override police procedure or the court’s authority.  In the recent case, Abdul Hamid v. Union of India (J&K & Ladakh High Court, 2025 which was related to the renewal passport during a pending case, the court clearly held that “a No Objection Certificate does NOT end or cancel the criminal case. Even though the petitioner wanted renewal of his passport, the Court made it clear that:  The criminal proceedings continue despite issuing or seeking an NOC.  An NOC only allows a specific permission (here, renewal/travel), not closure of the FIR or investigation.  Only the criminal court can grant such permission, not the police or passport office.  The Court reaffirmed that personal movement can be allowed during a pending case, but the case itself remains active until decided by law. In the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), “This case elaborated on theguidelines for offences under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder). It stressed that the court should conduct a prima facie assessment of the evidence and gravity of injuries, but ultimately, the court’s judicial discretion and satisfaction with the compromise supersede a mandatory NOC requirement.” Hence, “NOC = Permission, Not Acquittal or Case Closure.” When Is an NOC Actually Useful? (Bail, Settlement, Quashing) Bail Proceedings (Anticipatory or Regular Bail) – An NOC helps to show cooperation,no flight risk, which ultimately strengthens your bail request. NOC does not guarantee bail; it will strengthen your stand and help in acquiring the court’s confidence. Settlement in Minor Disputes – NOC shows that the complainant has no furthergrievance and helps to consider settlement.  Seeking Permission to Travel out of the jurisdiction of the court. Quashing of FIR/Proceedings Before the High Court- In settlement-based quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC, an NOC can act as written proof of compromise or no objection. It will also strengthen the argument that continuing proceedings serves no purpose. However, it is upon the discretion of the court whether it will quash the FIR or not.  The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) [(2012) 10 SCC 303] held that “a High Court can use its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offenses if an amicable settlement has been reached, even without a formal No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the police. This is

The process of land acquisition for national highways has, for a long time, been a source of considerable emotional and economic stress for families all over India. To many households, land is not merely a piece of property, but a source of livelihood, heritage, stability, and identity. When the government decides to acquire land for highway construction or expansion, landowners naturally expect just compensation reflecting not only the market value of the land but also the hardships associated with compulsory acquisition. However, for almost two decades, this expectation remained unmet for scores of families who were affected by acquisitions made by NHAI. The root of this injustice was one lone provision in the National Highways Act, 1956: Section 3J. It denied landowners much-needed statutory benefits afforded by the Land Acquisition Act, hence offering lower compensation in comparison. Years of litigation, confusion, and injustice followed, pending the Supreme Court judgment popularly referred to as the Tarsem Singh judgment, pronounced in 2019, and further clarified in February 2025.  Section 3J of the NHAI Act: Background and Controversy Section 3J held that none of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act would apply toacquisitions conducted under the National Highways Act. In practice, this meant that landowners whose lands were acquired by the NHAI were deprived of several important monetaryprotections, including:   ➢ Solatium: this is a statutory additional amount of compensation awarded becauseacquisition is compulsory   ➢ Interest-Statutory interest, compensation for delays in payment.   ➢ Additional benefits such as enhanced compensation available under the earlier Land Acquisition Act Meanwhile, other landowners whose properties were affected by various public projects continued to enjoy such protections. The resulting disparate treatment generated an inequitable scenario wherein two landowners in the same district could receive substantially different benefits solely because of the different statutory schemes applicable to their acquisitions.  This led to a number of landowners and their counsel contesting Section 3J before various High Courts, which ultimately brought it before the Supreme Court.  Solatium and Interest: Definitions and Implications Understanding the hardship engendered by Section 3J requires clarity on solatium and interest. ➢ Solatium: Compensation paid for land forcibly acquired, representing that the deal was not a voluntary one and thus causing disturbed feelings and social adjustment. According to the Land Acquisition Act, solatium is imposed as 30% of the land market value, and it supplements the total compensation sizeably.  ➢ Interest: Compensation for delayed payment, acknowledging that most government acquisitions involve long periods between takeover of land and actual payment. Statutory interest guards against loss of real value because of time delay. Excluding these components under Section 3J resulted in comparatively reduced compensation in NHAI acquisitions, notwithstanding the mandatory and involuntary character of the acquisition process.  The 2019 Landmark Judgment: Union of India v. Tarsem Singh In 2019, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh that curtailed the ambit of the legal regime for land acquisition related to highways. The Court declared Section 3J unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, Right to Equality. The judgment found that landowners whose lands were being acquired for highways were wrongly divested of their solatium and interest, stating: For acquisitions conducted between 1997 and 2015, land owners were entitled to solatium and interest. The differential treatment arising from the exclusion of such benefits constituted irrational classification among landowners subject to different statutory regimes.  The Tarsem Singh judgment came as a relief for thousands of families who felt that they had been discriminated against. Thereafter, thousands of landowners approached the government for recalculating their compensation, while several High Courts passed orders granting solatium and interest in compliance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court. Clarification Required: the 2019 Judgment Even after the 2019 judgment, the NHAI had sought clarification on prospective application. More precisely, the NHAI contended that the Tarsem Singh judgment should only be applied prospectively to avoid reopening of closed cases and causing financial burdens on the government. The central question of selective application of justice involved a fundamental constitutional question: if solatium and interest form part of just compensation, should their award be guided by the date of acquisition? This question was finally clarified by the Supreme Court in 2025. Clarification by the Supreme Court in February 2025: Retrospective Relief On 4 February 2025, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the Tarsem Singh judgment operates retrospectively. By a detailed order penned by Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, the Court denied the prayer of NHAI for prospective application and held thus: ➢ Tarsem Singh judgment is to be applied retrospectively.  ➢ The landowners whose land was acquired between the years 1997 and 2015 are entitledto solatium and interest.  ➢ Denying these benefits based on acquisition date violates equality and constitutionalprotections.  ➢ Financial cost cannot be a valid reason to deprive individuals of constitutional rights.  ➢ Only the computation of solatium and interest needs any change; all other items of theaward remain the same.  The Court then used a simple example to demonstrate the unfairness of such prospective application: land acquired on 31 December 2014 would get no solatium, but land acquisition on 1 January 2015 would get the full benefits. Such a temporal distinction is bereft of rational reasoning and is contrary to basic tenets of fairness. The Court also made it clear that the addition of solatium and interest in such cases does not amount to reopening the merits of the case in courts but merely ensures that land owners receive benefits the law had always sought to grant them.  Implications for Landowners The 2025 clarification significantly redefined landowners’ legal and financial rights. Its implications go beyond the realm of technical accounting to include: ➢ Fairness has been restored: compensation now reflects the actual effect of compulsory acquisition.  ➢ Equal treatment: Recognition that NHAI acquisitions should not be treated anydifferently from land acquisitions under the other statutory regimes.  ➢ Constitutional protection: The Court has reiterated that financial matters cannotoutweigh constitutional rights.  ➢ Recalculation opportunities: Even cases that have been closed

Abstract Banks in India freeze accounts when any cyber fraud or unauthorized digital transaction is reported. The intention is not to punish the account holder but to stop further loss of money. In practice, the process feels confusing and stressful because banks, police, and cyber cells work on parallel tracks. This paper explains what actually happens when a bank account is frozen due to cyber fraud, what rights the customer has, and how to get the account unfrozen in a smooth and lawful way. It also breaks down relevant RBI rules, case laws, and practical steps that people actually use to get their money moving again. Introduction A frozen bank account usually means the bank has stopped all outgoing transactions. You cannot withdraw money, transfer funds, or make digital payments, though banks normally allow deposits to continue. Most people first learn their account is frozen only when a payment suddenly fails. The usual reasons include: A complaint filed by a victim of cyber fraud A notification received through the cyber crime portal Suspicion of money laundering under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act A direct police instruction to put a hold The idea is simple. If someone claims they were cheated and the money landed in your account, the bank freezes your account to keep the funds intact until the investigation is over.While it is frustrating, the law does give you a process to get your account unfrozen. You just need to follow the right steps in the right order. First Step: Contact the Bank Visit your branch or customer care and ask a simple question:“Under which complaint or order has my account been frozen?” The bank should provide: The complaint number The date they received the freeze request Whether the complaint came from a police station, the National Cyber Crime Portal, or another bank The category of freeze (temporary or police-directed) If the bank refuses to give details, you can ask for it in writing. You can also file a short letter requesting clarification. Banks usually cooperate once they know you are formally requesting information. Second Step: Contact the Cyber Cell or Police Station Once you get the complaint details, approach the police station or cyber cell that issued the freeze request. You can also verify the complaint at the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.³ When you meet the officer, keep your explanation simple. Tell them: You are not involved in the fraud You are willing to cooperate fully You need the freeze lifted because your regular banking is affected   Most officers will ask for basic documents like: Your ID Bank statement Transaction details A written statement explaining your side Cooperating makes the process faster. If the complaint was wrongly linked, the officer can issue a “no objection” note to the bank. Third Step: Submit Written Representation A written representation helps because officers and bank managers handle dozens of cases daily. Your letter should mention: Your account number The date of freeze The complaint reference A short explanation that you are not involved in the fraud A request to remove the freeze If the money you received was part of the fraud chain by accident, the police might ask you to return it. Depending on the investigation, they may also allow the bank to release your account after verification. Fourth Step: Follow RBI-Based Procedures RBI guidelines give clarity on how banks should act when unauthorized electronic transactions occur. These rules are important because they apply to both victims and people whose accounts get flagged. The RBI states that banks must act immediately to stop further movement of funds once a complaint is lodged.⁴ However, once verification is complete, the bank must restore normal services if no wrongdoing is found.If the cyber cell issues a release order, the bank has to unfreeze your account without delay. Case Laws That Support Restoration Courts in India have repeatedly held that freezing an account cannot be indefinite. In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, the Supreme Court held that investigations must follow proper evidence procedures.⁵ This matters here because police cannot keep accounts frozen without proper proof linking the person to the fraud. In several High Court decisions, judges have directed banks to unfreeze accounts when: There was no evidence of active involvement The police failed to show continued necessity The freeze affected fundamental rights You can refer to these principles if you need to make a written representation. What to do if unknowingly received fraudulent funds? Sometimes the money does come into your account without you realizing it. For example: You sold something online Someone sent payment from a hacked account You were paid for freelance work by someone who turned out to be involved in fraud Even in such cases, you are not automatically liable. Banks usually give two options: Return the disputed amount voluntarily, or Wait for the investigation to confirm details Returning the amount sometimes speeds up the unfreezing process, but it is not legally mandatory unless there is evidence you were part of the fraud. Estimated Time for Unfreezing Accounts There is no fixed rule because it depends on: How quickly the cyber cell verifies your documents Whether the complainant responds Whether the disputed amount is traceable How busy the officer handling the case is However, most cases get resolved within 7 to 21 days when the account holder is cooperative and the documentation is clear. What to Do If the Bank Refuses to Act? (Escalation) You can escalate when: The bank ignores your written requests The police do not respond for weeks The freeze continues even after you provide documents Escalation options: Bank Nodal Officer Bank Ombudsman under the RBI Integrated Ombudsman Scheme Higher cyber cell officer A short legal notice through a lawyer (last resort) Courts rarely get involved unless the freeze is unreasonable, but you always have the right to challenge an indefinite freeze. Conclusion: Getting a bank account unfrozen after cyber fraud feels complicated because three institutions are involved: the bank, the cyber