Suryansh Chawda vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the decisions in Malcolm Murayis (supra) and Archana (supra) were applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. The Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 31,300.65 (across 3 entries) shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). If further complaints are received, the bank can take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the SOP. The disputed amount shall 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 If the Police agency fails to proceed in accordance with law within this period, the amount in FD may be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the Police agency.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 ordered that the petitioner's bank account shall be unfrozen, and the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the account. The Court emphasized adherence to the SOP and prompt action by all authorities.

Facts

The petitioner, Suryansh Chawda, filed a writ petition seeking to unfreeze his savings account with Axis Bank and restore all banking facilities. The account was frozen based on information from cyber cell 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 in similar cases where bank accounts were frozen without prior notice or adherence to procedural requirements. The judgment also refers to a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) framed by the Government for handling grievances related to frozen bank accounts in cyber crime cases.

Key Issues

1. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank account without prior notice or adherence to due process is arbitrary and violates his fundamental rights? (Relates to principles of natural justice and Article 226 of the Constitution of India). 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to operate his bank account pending investigation, with the disputed amount secured? (Relates to the balance between investigation needs and individual rights). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that his bank account was frozen without any notice, and he was unaware of any involvement in cyber fraud. He contended that his business was legitimate and that the freezing was done without following proper legal procedures, citing the judgment in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others. He also highlighted the lack of compliance with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. by the investigating agencies. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the State or other respondents. However, it notes that banks freeze accounts only upon instructions from cyber cell police stations and are bound by such directives. The judgment also references the SOP which outlines procedures for investigating officers and law enforcement agencies.