Abhishek Gour vs. Reserve Bank Of INDIA

Held

The High Court held that the decisions in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others and Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others were applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. Following these precedents, the Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 10,000/- mentioned in the petition be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). The Court further stipulated that if the bank receives complaints regarding other entries, it may take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the SOP issued by the Government as discussed in the Archana case. The disputed amount in FD would be allowed to be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. The Court expected the police agency to proceed in accordance with law under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or any other applicable law. Failing action by the police agency within three months, the amount in FD could be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency. Crucially, the bank account of the petitioner was ordered to be unfrozen, and the petitioner was permitted to operate the account. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Abhishek Gour, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to unfreeze his bank account (Account No. 50100711284302) maintained with HDFC Bank, Morena Branch, and to restore its full operation. The petitioner contended that his case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court, specifically Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others. In that case, petitioners involved in crypto trading had their accounts frozen by banks based on intimations from cyber cells alleging involvement in cyber fraud. The petitioners in Malcolm Murayis argued they had not received any notice and were conducting lawful business, suggesting that fraudulent transactions might have passed through their accounts. The High Court in Malcolm Murayis had directed that disputed amounts be kept in fixed deposits pending judicial orders, with a monthly withdrawal limit for petitioners, and that banks respond to cyber crime cells. The present petition also references a subsequent judgment in Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, which discussed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievance redressal concerning frozen bank accounts in cyber crime cases.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should direct the unfreezing of the petitioner's bank account, considering the allegations of cyber fraud and the involvement of cyber crime cells? 2. Whether the principles laid down in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others and Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, including the application of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for cyber crime cases, are applicable to the present petition? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that his situation is squarely covered by the High Court's previous decisions in Malcolm Murayis and Archana. He sought the unfreezing of his bank account and restoration of its full operation, relying on the procedural directions and relief granted in those cases. The petitioner implicitly argued that the freezing of his account, without proper notice or adherence to established procedures, is unjust. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents (Reserve Bank of India, HDFC Bank, and other unnamed respondents). However, it notes that in the Malcolm Murayis case, the respondent banks submitted that they had frozen accounts solely on instructions from cyber cell police stations and were bound by those directives. The judgment also references the SOP issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which outlines procedures for banks and investigating agencies.