Dikshant Nim vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the principles laid down in the cases of Malcolm Murayis (supra) and Archana (supra) are applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. The Court directed that the disputed amount, as claimed by the petitioner, shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). If any other complaint is received by the Bank regarding another entry, the Bank is at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Government. The disputed amount shall be allowed 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Police agency fails to proceed in accordance with law within this period, the amount kept in FD may be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the Police agency. Consequently, 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, Dikshant Nim, filed a writ petition seeking to de-freeze his savings bank account (No. 05941000038026) maintained with Punjab & Sind Bank, Ratlam. The account was frozen based on an intimation from cyber cell police 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, specifically 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 petitioner sought to operate the account, or at least the undisputed portion of the funds, while the disputed amount could be kept in fixed deposit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank account is justified without prior notice or adherence to due process, particularly in light of allegations of cyber fraud? 2. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to operate his bank account, or at least the undisputed portion of the funds, pending investigation? The petitioner argued that his bank account was frozen without any notice to him and that he was unaware of any involvement in cyber fraud. He contended that he was lawfully conducting his business and that the freezing of the account caused him financial hardship. He relied on the decision in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others, which directed that disputed amounts be kept in fixed deposits and the rest of the account be unfrozen. The revenue (Union of India and Anr.) did not present specific arguments in the provided text, but their action of freezing the account implies a contention that the account was indeed linked to illegal activities requiring restraint.