Shalini Vishwakarma vs. Icici Bank

Held

The Court held that the decisions in "Malcolm Murayis" and "Archana" were applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. It directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- be kept in Fixed Deposit (FD). The Court further stipulated that this FD could only be liquidated after orders were passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. It was expected that the police agency would proceed in accordance with law under the relevant provisions or any other law they were relying upon. If this did not happen within the stipulated time, the amount in FD could be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the Police agency. Additionally, the Court directed that the petitioner's bank account be unfrozen and she be permitted to operate it. 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.

Facts

The petitioner, Shalini Vishwakarma, filed a writ petition seeking release of a Fixed Deposit amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- held with ICICI Bank. She also sought directions for the investigating agency to communicate any subsisting order authorizing the retention of the amount and for the restoration of her savings bank account operations and retailer ID. The petitioner argued that her 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." These prior judgments dealt with similar issues of bank accounts being frozen based on cyber crime allegations, often without proper notice or adherence to procedural norms. The petitioner contended that her bank account was frozen without proper justification, impacting her ability to operate her finances.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of her Fixed Deposit amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- held with ICICI Bank, considering the allegations of cyber fraud. 2. Whether the investigating agency has complied with the necessary legal procedures for retaining the frozen funds, particularly in light of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for cyber crime cases. 3. Whether the petitioner's bank account should be unfrozen and she should be permitted to operate it. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that her situation is analogous to the cases decided in "Malcolm Murayis" and "Archana," where similar reliefs were granted. She contended that the freezing of her bank account and Fixed Deposit was arbitrary and lacked proper legal basis. She relied on the principles laid down in these judgments, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural fairness and the SOP. She sought the release of her funds and the unfreezing of her account. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or state. However, the context implies that the freezing of the account was initiated by investigating agencies based on cyber crime allegations.