Harshita Seeds vs. Idbi Bank
Held
The Court held that the decisions in "Malcolm Murayis" and "Archana" were applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. Following the directions in those judgments, the Court ordered that the disputed amount of Rs. 1,21,100/- be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). The Court directed that this disputed amount would only be liquidated after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. If the police agency fails to proceed in accordance with the law within this period, the amount kept in FD may be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency. Crucially, the Court directed that the bank account of the petitioner shall be unfrozen, and the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the account. 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.
Facts
The petitioner, Harshita Seeds, filed a writ petition seeking to unfreeze its current bank account held with IDBI Bank, Ujjain. The petitioner argued that its case was covered by previous High Court judgments 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 the freezing of bank accounts based on allegations of cyber fraud, often initiated by cyber cells of police stations. The petitioner contended that they had not received any notice regarding involvement in offenses and were lawfully conducting their business. The bank had frozen the account based on instructions from cyber cells. The judgment also refers to a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 10.04.2026 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs concerning grievance redressal for frozen bank accounts in cyber crime cases.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court can direct the unfreezing of a bank account when it has been frozen by a bank on the intimation from cyber cells of police stations, alleging involvement in cyber fraud? (Question of law) 2. Whether the principles laid down in the cases of "Malcolm Murayis" and "Archana" are applicable to the present case, considering the allegations of cyber fraud and the subsequent freezing of the bank account? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that their case is squarely covered by the decisions in "Malcolm Murayis" and "Archana." They contended that they were lawfully carrying out their business and had not received any notice regarding involvement in any offense. They relied on the principles established in the cited cases, which dealt with the freezing of bank accounts without proper procedure or notice, and the need for a balance between investigation and the right to operate a bank account. They also pointed to the SOP as a framework for grievance redressal. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state. It notes that the banks froze accounts based on instructions from cyber cell police stations and were bound by those instructions. The judgment highlights the lack of response from cyber crime cells to queries from banks.
Sections Cited
Section 102 of Cr.P.C.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:
"
RELIEF SOUGHT i. to call for the relevant records of the case from the Respondents; ii. to direct the Respondent by issuance of a Writ of mandamus to un-freeze the current account of the Petitioner bearing A/e no. - 0088102000039756 of IDBI Bank, Excel Tower, 6 Kamla Nehru Marg, Near Shahid Park, Freeganj, Ujjain, District - Ujjain (M.P.) and allow the Petitioner to operate the aforesaid bank account iii. to allow this petition with costs. iv. to pass such other order(s) as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, to grant relief to the 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 Mu
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.