Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the action of freezing the bank account of the petitioner by the respondent Bank on being intimated by cyber cell upon suspicion of cyber fraud, a Single Judge Bench of Subodh Abhyankar, J., directed to unfreeze the account of the petitioner and keep the disputed amount in separate fixed deposit, to be liquidated only after the Judicial Magistrate finally decides the matter of cybercrime or cyber fraud in 3 months’ time.
Background
Through this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner have prayed for following reliefs — 1) direct the respondents to unfreeze/remove the lien marked on bank account of petitioner, 2) not to restrain or create any hindrance in the lawful operation of petitioner’s account, and 3) any other relief that deems fit.
The petitioner referred to the decision of the Court in the case of Malcolm Murayis v. State Bank of India, Writ Petition No. 1100 of 2024, where similar reliefs were claimed on the same set of facts and it was contended by the petitioner that this case squarely covers the case of the petitioner.
The facts of the referred matter allow the Court to infer that the petitioner were engaged in trading of crypto and virtual currency and had their bank accounts with the respondent Bank. The account was frozen by the bank on the intimation of cyber cells of various police stations to freeze the account on the suspicion of cyber fraud. The petitioner never received any notice from any police station regarding their involvement in any such offence and none of the investigation agencies complied with requirement of informing the Magistrate concerned about such seizure as required by Section 102, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
The petitioner requested to direct the bank to keep the amount, said to be credited on account of cyber fraud, in separate fixed deposit so that it can be withdrawn pursuant to conclusion of the proceedings.
Due to same set of facts, similar reliefs were sought by the petitioner in the present case.
Analysis
The Court stated that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Malcolm Murayis, shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case.
In the referred case, the Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw ₹50,000 per month as an interim measure and directed the respondent Banks to keep the disputed amount in fixed deposits after issuing notices to the respondents to file reply within stipulated time. The Court directed that the amount of fixed deposits can be liquidated only after the orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within 3 months’ time, upon cybercrime police complying with law under Section 102 CrPC or any other law, failing which, the amount so kept in fixed deposits may also be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner after intimating the cybercrime agencies.
Thus, the Court proceeded with giving similar directions in the present case too.
The respondent Bank was directed to keep the disputed amount in fixed deposits, allowed to be liquidated only after the orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within 3 months’ time, upon police agency complying with the relevant provisions of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) of intimating the Magistrate concerned of such seizure, or any other law on which it was relying upon, failing which the amount so kept in fixed deposits may also be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency.
The Court also directed to unfreeze the bank account of the petitioner and thus, disposed of the petition.
[Dekain Perfect Tech Ksolution (P) Ltd. v. IDFC First Bank, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 17717, decided on 22-6-2026]
Judgment authored by: Justice Subodh Abhyankar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Harshwardhan Sharma
For Respondents: Tejas Vyas
