Atiquiddin Shaikh vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the decisions in Malcolm Murayis and Archana would apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. The disputed amount of ₹1,170/- was to be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). The Court directed that the petitioner's bank account be unfrozen and he be permitted to operate it. The FD amount would be liquidated only after orders from a competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. If the police agency failed to proceed according to law within this period, the FD amount could be withdrawn by the petitioner, with intimation to the police agency. The Court also noted that if other complaints were received by the bank regarding different entries, the bank could 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, Atiquiddin Shaikh, filed a writ petition seeking to unfreeze his bank account held with ICICI Bank, except for a disputed amount of ₹1,170/-. The account had been frozen based on information from cyber crime cells of various 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 High Court judgments, specifically 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 crime allegations. The State was represented by the Government Advocate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's bank account, frozen due to allegations of cyber fraud, should be unfrozen, retaining only the disputed amount of ₹1,170/-, in light of the principles laid down in Malcolm Murayis and Archana judgments? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that his case was squarely covered by the Malcolm Murayis judgment, which directed the release of bank accounts except for disputed amounts to be kept in fixed deposits. He also referred to the Archana judgment, which discussed the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievance redressal in cyber crime cases. The petitioner asserted that he had not received any notice regarding involvement in any offense and was lawfully trading. He sought to operate his bank account while the disputed amount could be held in fixed deposit. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the State/Revenue. However, it notes that the banks had frozen accounts based on instructions from cyber cell police stations.