Pankaj Patil vs. Branch Manager Hdfc Bank

Held

The Court held that the decisions in Malcolm Murayis and Archana would be applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. The Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 23,000/- shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). If any other complaint is received by the bank regarding another entry, the bank can 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 shall be allowed to be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. If this does not happen, the amount kept in FD may be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency.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 shall be permitted to operate the account. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Pankaj Patil, filed a writ petition seeking to unfreeze his bank account. The account was frozen by HDFC Bank upon intimation 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 a previous High Court judgment in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others, which dealt with similar issues of frozen bank accounts due to cyber crime allegations. The Court noted that a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievance redressal in such cases had been framed by the Government and was discussed in another co-ordinate bench judgment in Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. The petitioner's bank account balance significantly exceeded the alleged disputed amount of Rs. 23,000/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court can direct the unfreezing of a bank account that has been frozen by a bank on the instruction of police authorities due to allegations of cyber fraud, when the petitioner claims no involvement and relies on previous High Court judgments and a subsequently framed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that his case is squarely covered by the decision in Malcolm Murayis, where similar relief was granted. He contended that he had not received any notice regarding involvement in any offense and was carrying out his business lawfully. He also highlighted that the SOP and the Archana judgment provided a framework for resolving such issues. The petitioner sought the unfreezing of his bank account. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue or State. However, it notes that banks freeze accounts only at the instructions of cyber cell police stations and are bound by such instructions. The previous judgment in Malcolm Murayis also noted that the police agencies were expected to proceed in accordance with law under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. or other relevant laws.