Sohail vs. Hdfc Bank Indore Main Branch Through Its Branch Manager
Held
The Court held that the decisions in 'Malcolm Murayis' and 'Archana' were applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. Following these precedents, the Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 44,876.26 shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). The bank account of the petitioner shall be unfrozen, and the petitioner will be permitted to operate it. The disputed amount in FD will be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, with the expectation that the police agency will proceed in accordance with law. If no orders are passed within this period, the amount in FD may be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency. The Court also noted that if any other complaint is received by the bank regarding other entries, the bank can take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the SOP issued by the Government as discussed in the 'Archana' case. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Sohail, filed a writ petition seeking to defreeze his bank account (Account No. 99999826277778) held with HDFC Bank, Indore Main Branch. The account had been frozen based on an intimation from cyber cell 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 in similar matters, specifically 'Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others' and 'Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others', which dealt with the freezing of bank accounts due to cyber fraud allegations and the application of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievance redressal. The disputed amount in the present petition is stated to be Rs. 44,876.26.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's bank account, frozen due to allegations of cyber fraud, should be defreezed, considering the absence of prior notice to the petitioner and the principles laid down in 'Malcolm Murayis' and 'Archana' judgments? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in freezing bank accounts). 2. Whether the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 10.04.2026, governing grievance redressal for frozen bank accounts in cyber crime cases, should be applied to the petitioner's situation? (Question of law, turning on the applicability of administrative guidelines). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that his case is covered by the 'Malcolm Murayis' judgment, where similar relief was granted. He contended that he had not received any notice regarding involvement in any offense and was lawfully carrying out his business. He also highlighted that the cyber crime police had not complied with Section 102 of Cr.P.C. and had not informed the concerned Magistrate about the seizure. He relied on the 'Archana' judgment which discussed the SOP. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state, but it refers to the banks' submission that they froze accounts only upon instructions from cyber cell police stations and were bound by such directives. The 'Archana' judgment also notes the duty of law enforcement agencies to preserve proceeds of cyber crime.
Sections Cited
Section 102
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: (1) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 1 HDFC Bank Idore “Main Branch(IFSC: HDFC000003 6) to forthwith defreeze/remove the hold/lien from the Petitioner’s account bearing No. 99999826277778 as mentioned in Para 5.2 of the petition (as per Annexure P/1). (2) Issue such other orders, writ, and direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit in the interest of justice in favor 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. Vs. State Bank of India and Others Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others p
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.