Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of Baroda

Held

The Court held that the principles laid down in the cases of Malcolm Murayis and Archana were applicable to the present case. The Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 51,210/- 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. The disputed amount would be allowed to be liquidated only after orders were passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. If no such orders were passed within this period, the amount in FD could be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the Police agency. Consequently, the bank account of the petitioner was ordered to be unfrozen, and the petitioner was permitted to operate the account. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Laxman Singh Yadav, filed a writ petition seeking to unfreeze his bank account held with Bank of Baroda. The account was frozen based on information from cyber police, alleging involvement in cyber fraud. The petitioner argued that he was unaware of any such involvement and that his business transactions were legitimate. He relied on previous High Court judgments, specifically Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India 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 petitioner sought to operate his account normally or, at least, restrict the hold to the disputed transaction amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's bank account, frozen by the respondent bank based on cyber police intimation, should be unfrozen or its operations restricted to the disputed amount, considering the petitioner's claim of legitimate business transactions and lack of notice. 2. Whether the principles laid down in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, particularly concerning the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievance redressal in cyber crime cases, are applicable to the present case. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that his account was frozen without notice and that he was engaged in lawful trading. He relied on the Malcolm Murayis judgment, which directed that disputed amounts be kept in fixed deposits and allowed withdrawal after a specified period if no judicial orders were passed. He also referred to the Archana judgment, which emphasized adherence to the SOP and timely grievance redressal. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state authorities. However, the context implies that the freezing was done at the behest of cyber police agencies.