Kavya Shrivastava vs. State Bank Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the decisions in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others are applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. The disputed amount of Rs. 6426.15/- shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). If further complaints arise, the bank can take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the SOP. The disputed amount will be allowed to be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. If the police agency fails to proceed in accordance with law within this period, the amount in FD may be withdrawn by the petitioner after intimation to the police agency. Consequently, the petitioner's bank account shall be unfrozen, and she will be permitted to operate it. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as it applied existing precedents and SOPs to resolve the matter.
Facts
The petitioner, Kavya Shrivastava, filed a writ petition seeking to de-freeze her bank account (bearing No. 41598157148 at State Bank of India) and remove a hold of Rs. 6426.15/-. She contended that the freezing was illegal and arbitrary, violating constitutional rights and provisions of the BNSS, 2023. The petitioner argued her case was covered by the High Court's previous decision in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India. The Court noted that the State Bank of India had frozen the account based on instructions from cyber cell police stations alleging involvement in cyber fraud. The procedural history involves the petitioner's reliance on prior judgments and the court's consideration of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank account by the respondent bank, without adhering to the procedures outlined in Section 106(3) and 107 of the BNSS, 2023, and without complying with Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India, is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the freezing of her account was done without proper notice or adherence to legal procedures, making it unconstitutional and arbitrary. She relied on the precedent set in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India, where similar actions were challenged. The petitioner also highlighted the lack of compliance with Section 102 of Cr.P.C. by investigating agencies in prior cases. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the State or revenue. However, it notes that the banks froze accounts based on instructions from cyber cell police stations, indicating their compliance with directives from investigating authorities.
Sections Cited
Section 106(3), Section 107, Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 21, Article 300A, Section 102 of 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: i) Direct the respondent bank to immediately de-freeze and remove the hold amount 6426.15/- and kept in the FD, from the bank account bearing No. 41598157148 at State Bank of India Branch at ‘129 A, PBB Kalani Nagar Branch District Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. ii) Declare that the action of complete freezing the Petitioner’s account without complying Section 106(3), ‘107 of BNSS, 2023 and without following article 14, 19( L(g), 21,300A of the Constitution of It illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. iii) Pass such further order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscious.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision
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.