Khushvant Singh Parmar vs. INDIA Post Payment Bank
Held
The Court held that the principles laid down in the cases of 'Malcolm Murayis' and 'Archana' were applicable. The disputed amount of Rs. 4,000/- in the petitioner's account was directed to be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). The Court further directed that the petitioner's bank account be unfrozen and he be permitted to operate it. The FD would be liquidated only after orders were passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. If the police agency failed to proceed in accordance with law within this period, the amount in FD could be withdrawn by the petitioner, under intimation to the police agency. The Court also noted that if any other complaint was received by the bank regarding other entries, the bank could take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the SOP issued by the Government. The Court emphasized that freezing of bank accounts is an extraordinary measure and should not be resorted to mechanically.
Facts
The petitioner, Khushvant Singh Parmar, filed a writ petition seeking to unfreeze his bank account held with India Post Payment Bank. The account was frozen based on an intimation from cyber crime cells of various police stations, alleging involvement in cyber fraud. The petitioner contended that he was unaware of any such involvement and was lawfully conducting his business. He relied on previous judgments of the High Court, specifically 'Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others' and 'Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others', which dealt with similar issues of frozen bank accounts due to cyber crime allegations. The judgment also notes the existence of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs for grievance redressal in such cases.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court can direct the unfreezing of a bank account when it has been frozen by police authorities based on allegations of cyber fraud, and if so, under what conditions? (Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 102 of Cr.P.C.). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that his bank account was frozen without prior notice and that he was engaged in lawful trading. He contended that the freezing was arbitrary and sought the release of his account, citing precedents where similar reliefs were granted. He also argued that the investigating agencies had not complied with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. by not informing the concerned Magistrate. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents (Banks) submitted that they froze the accounts only upon instructions from various cyber cell police stations and were bound by those instructions. The judgment notes that in the 'Malcolm Murayis' case, except for one cyber crime cell, other police stations did not respond to emails, indicating a poor functioning and irresponsible approach.
Sections Cited
Section 102, Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:
"
RELIEF SOUGHT: It is therefore most humbly prayed by the petitioner that by a suitable writ order or direction this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: -
This petition may kindly be allowed with cost.
To direct the Respondent No. 1, i.e India Post Payment Bank thereby directing Respondents to remove the hold/freeze on the Bank account of petitioner bearing Account no. 028610194094 IFSC code: IPOS0000001. 3. Issue such other orders, writ, and direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the interest of justice in favour of petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Malcolm Murayis & Ors.
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.