Mayank Chanrawat vs. Au Small Finance Bank
Held
The Court held that the principles laid down in the cases of Malcolm Murayis and Archana were applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. The Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 19,300/- be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). If any other complaint is received by the bank regarding another entry, the bank can take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the SOP. The disputed amount shall be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. If the police agency does not proceed in accordance with law within this period, the amount in FD may be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the Police agency. The bank account of the petitioner shall be unfrozen, and the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the account. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Mayank Chanrawat, filed a writ petition seeking to remove a debit freeze on his bank account with AU Small Finance Bank. He contended that there was no subsisting cyber complaint and the concerned Cyber Authority had issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC). The petitioner also sought to continue his lawful retailer business correspondent service without restriction and to restore his Retailer ID. The petitioner argued that his case was covered by previous High Court decisions in "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 bank accounts being frozen due to cyber fraud allegations. The judgment also references a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 10.04.2026 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs for grievance redressal in cyber crime cases.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court can direct the de-freezing of a bank account when allegations of cyber fraud are involved, and if so, under what conditions? (Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 102 of Cr.P.C., Standard Operating Procedure dated 10.04.2026). Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that his case is squarely covered by the High Court's decisions in Malcolm Murayis and Archana, which provided relief in similar situations. - He contended that there was no subsisting cyber complaint and an NOC had been issued by the Cyber Authority. - He sought to continue his lawful business without restriction. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state authorities regarding the petitioner's case. However, it refers to the banks' position that they froze accounts based on instructions from cyber cell police stations and were bound by such instructions. - The judgment notes that in the Malcolm Murayis case, the investigating agencies had not complied with Section 102 of Cr.P.C. by informing the concerned Magistrate about the seizure.
Sections Cited
Article 226, Section 102 Cr.P.C.
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: a) This petition may kindly be allowed with costs. (b) To direct the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, thereby directing the Respondents to remove the hold or debit freeze and permit the entire balance amount lying in the Petitioners Bank Account number 2251231444706990, IFSC Code AUBL0002314, maintained with the AU Small Finance Bank, Ground Floor Veda Complex, Bhanwar-kuwa, Indore, there being no Subsisting Cyber Complaint and the concerned Cyber Authority having already issued NOC, also the petitioner and permit to continue his lawful retailer business correspondent service without restriction (c) Issue such other orders, writs and directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioner. d) Direct the respo
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.