Pushpa Devi Verma vs. State Bank Of INDIA Through Its Chief Manager

Held

The Court held that the principles laid down in the cases of Malcolm Murayis and Archana would apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. The Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- mentioned in the petition be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). If further complaints are received, the bank is permitted to take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the SOP issued by the Government. The disputed amount in FD is 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 If the police agency fails to proceed in accordance with law within this period, the amount in FD may be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency. Crucially, the Court directed that the petitioner's bank account shall be unfrozen, and she be permitted to operate it. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Pushpa Devi Verma, filed a writ petition seeking to remove a hold/freeze on her bank account (Account No. 10612497593) with the State Bank of India. The freeze was reportedly imposed based on a cyber complaint. The petitioner argued that her case was covered by previous High Court judgments, specifically Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others (W.P. No. 1100 of 2024) and Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (dated 27.07.2026). These judgments dealt with similar issues of bank accounts being frozen due to cyber fraud allegations, often without prior notice to the account holder. The petitioner sought to operate her account while ensuring that any disputed amount could be dealt with as per law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to direct the removal of a freeze on a bank account imposed based on a cyber complaint, particularly when the petitioner claims to be unaware of any wrongdoing and has not received prior notice (Article 226 of the Constitution of India)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that her case is squarely covered by the precedents set in Malcolm Murayis and Archana, which directed the release of bank accounts under similar circumstances. She argued that the freeze was imposed without due process and that she should be allowed to operate her account, with any disputed amount being kept aside. She relied on the principles established in these earlier judgments. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or state. However, it notes that banks freeze accounts based on instructions from cyber cells and police stations, and are bound by such directives. The judgment implicitly addresses the state's role through the discussion of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and the actions of investigating agencies.