Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch Manager
Held
The Court held that the decisions in "Malcolm Murayis" and "Archana" were applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. Following these precedents, the Court directed that the disputed amount in the petitioner's bank account would be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). If any further complaints were received by the bank regarding other 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. The disputed amount would be allowed to be liquidated only after orders were passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. The Court expected the police agency to proceed in accordance with law under the relevant provisions or any other law they were relying upon. Failing this, the amount kept in FD could be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency.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 be permitted to operate the account. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Surendra Singh Rathore, filed a writ petition seeking the removal of an illegal freeze on his bank account (IDFC First Bank Account No. 10061617870) imposed without lawful authority. The petitioner argued that his 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 judgments dealt with similar issues of bank accounts being frozen based on cyber crime allegations, often without proper notice or adherence to procedural norms. The petitioner contended that the freeze was arbitrary and sought directions for the bank to unfreeze the account. The judgment references an earlier interim order allowing withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/- per month from frozen accounts in the "Malcolm Murayis" case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the freeze imposed on the petitioner's bank account is illegal and arbitrary, requiring intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in light of the principles laid down in "Malcolm Murayis" and "Archana"? (Question of law and fact, concerning the legality of administrative action and adherence to procedural fairness). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the freeze was imposed without lawful authority and was therefore illegal and arbitrary. He relied on the High Court's decisions in "Malcolm Murayis" and "Archana", which established guidelines for freezing bank accounts in cyber crime cases and emphasized the need for adherence to procedures and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievance redressal. The petitioner sought the unfreezing of his account. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue or state. It notes that in the "Malcolm Murayis" case, the respondent banks stated they froze accounts only upon instructions from cyber cell police stations and were bound by those instructions. In the "Archana" case, the judgment discusses the SOP issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Sections Cited
Section 102
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:
"
RELIEF SOUGHT a) This petition may kindly be allowed with cost. b) Direct the Respondents to remove the illegal and arbitrary freeze/hold imposed on the petitioner’s bank accounts, namely IDFC First bank Account No. 10061617870 IFSC Code IDFC0042141 which have been frozen without any lawful authority or order. c) Issue such other orders, writ and direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the interest of justice in favour of 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 Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others passed in W.P. No.1100 of 2024 dated 26.04.2
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.