Mohit Jain vs. Union Bank Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the decisions in "Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others" and "Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others" were 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 other entries, it is open for the bank 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. The Court expected the police agency to proceed in accordance with law under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or any other law. Failing this, the amount kept in FD may be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the Police agency.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. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohit Jain, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore seeking to quash the freezing of his bank account (Account No. 039001511160) by the respondents, Union Bank of India and others. The petitioner argued that his case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court 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 the freezing of bank accounts by police authorities based on allegations of cyber fraud, without prior notice to the account holders. The petitioner sought directions to unfreeze his account and permit him to operate it. The previous judgments highlighted issues with the procedure followed by investigating agencies and the lack of response from cyber crime cells.

Key Issues

1. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank account by the respondents, without prior notice or adherence to due process, is arbitrary and illegal, violating principles of natural justice, particularly in light of the judgments in Malcolm Murayis and Archana? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner contended that his situation is squarely covered by the High Court's decisions in Malcolm Murayis and Archana, which dealt with similar grievances of bank accounts being frozen based on cyber crime allegations without notice. - He argued that the freezing of his account was done without any prior intimation or opportunity to be heard, which is contrary to established legal principles. - The petitioner relied on the relief granted in the aforementioned cases, which involved directing the banks to keep disputed amounts in fixed deposits and allowing the petitioner to operate the remaining balance. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the revenue or state respondents in this specific writ petition. However, the context of the cited cases suggests that the police/investigating agencies are the ones initiating the freezing of accounts based on alleged cyber fraud.