Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin vs Hdfc Bank on 12 December, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36517
1 WP-47523-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 12th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 47523 of 2025
SACHIN
Versus
HDFC BANK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"7. यह क, यािचका िनधा रत मु ाप पर स वनय तुत है ।
7. यािचकाकता सहायता चाहता है कः-
(1) यह क यथ मांक 1 को यािचकाकता का उ खाता सं या 50100604820511 अन ज कये जाने हे तु उिचत आदे श दान करने क कृ पा कर। (2) यह क, अ य जो भी यायानुकुल सहायता जो माननीय यायालय यािचकाकतागण के मौिलक अिधकार क र ा बाबत ् उिचत समझे वह िनदश दान कये जाव। "
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is engaged in trading of shares in the share market and his bank account with the HDFC Bank has been frozen at the instance of respondent No.2 and 3, the Cyber Crime Police CCB, Chennai, Tamil Nadu as has been informed to the petitioner by the bank. The account of the petitioner has been frozen can also be demonstrated from the bank account which has been filed by the petitioner wherein the bank authorities have endorsed that the account has been frozen.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 12-Dec-25 4:01:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36517 2 WP-47523-2025 information received there is some transaction by the petitioner with an online firm through an App which according to respondents 2 and 3 is of dubious nature which has led to freezing of national Bank account.
4. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to an order passed in an identical case, in the case of Gautam Bhandari and Others Vs. State Bank of India and Others passed in W.P. No.30822/2024 dated 25.10.2024 wherein also, in an identical case, this Court had granted a relief to the petitioner that the amount which is disputed may be kept in a fixed deposit by the bank, with further direction that the competent Judicial Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law under Section 102 of Cr.P.C.. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner also agrees that the amount relating to questionable transaction may be kept in a fixed deposit, and the petitioner may be allowed to operate his account.
5. Heard. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record, this Court finds the prayer reasonable and innocuous, as no prejudice would be caused either to the Bank or to the respondents No.2 and 3, if the disputed amount is kept in fixed deposits, as has been ordered by this Court in the case of Gautam Bhandari (Supra) . Thus maintaining the prity, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition as well.
6. So far as the order passed by this Court in the case of Gautam Bhandari (Supra) is concerned, the same reads as under:-
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-
"It is therefore most humbly prayed by the petitioner that by a suitable writ order or direction this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: -Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 12-Dec-25 4:01:49 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36517 3 WP-47523-2025
a) This petition may kindly be allowed with cost.
b) To direct the Respondent No. 6 to 10 thereby directing Respondents to remove the hold/freeze on the Bank account of petitioners.
c) Issue such other orders, writ, and direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the interest of justice in favour of petitioner. "
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that their accounts have been freezed on account of some fraudulent activity.
3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are medical students, studying in fourth semester in Aurobindo College, Indore and were also trading in Crypto currency, in which the aforesaid transactions were made in their accounts. It is submitted that the petitioners may be allowed to operate their accounts, as the disputed entries are already on hold.
4. Counsel for the respondent No.1/ SBI has submitted that no case for interference is made out, however, it is not denied that on earlier occasions, this Court had passed various orders and one such order was passed in the case of Malcolm Murayis and Others Vs. State Bank of India and Others, W.P. No.1100/2024 dated 26.04.2024.
5. Heard. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record, it is found that so far as the order passed in the case of Malcolm Murayis (Supra) is concerned, it has been observed as under:-
"8] In compliance of the aforesaid order, State Bank of India has already sent emails to the concerned cyber crime cell of various police stations but except the cyber crime cell of Banglore, Karnataka / respondent No.4 in connected petition W.P. No.1185/2024, no other police station has taken trouble to respond to the emails sent to them, which also demonstrates the poor functioning and irresponsible approach of the said cyber crime cells of various States as on one hand they had sent emails to the various banks to freeze certain accounts, and on the other hand they are not willing to respond to the emails sent to them.
9] In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents/Bank to keep the disputed amount as informed to them by various cyber crime agencies, in fixed deposits, which shall be allowed to be liquidated only after the orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months' time as it is expected from the cybercrime police to proceed in accordance with law under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., or any other law on which they are relying upon, failing which the amount so kept in FDs may also be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioners under intimation to the cybercrime agencies."
(Emphasis Supplied)
6. On due consideration of the reliefs sought by the petitioners, as also the aforesaid order, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents/Bank to keep the disputed amount as informed to them by various cyber crime agencies, in fixed deposits, which shall be allowed to be liquidated only after the orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months' time as it is expected from the cybercrime police to proceed in accordance with law under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., or any other law on which they are relying upon, failing which the amount so kept in FDs may also be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioners under intimation to the cyber crime agencies.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 12-Dec-25 4:01:49 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36517 4 WP-47523-2025
7. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed with a direction to the respondent No.1/Bank to keep the disputed amount as informed to them by cyber crime agency (the respondents No.2 and 3), in a fixed deposit, which shall be allowed to be liquidated only after the order is passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months' time as it is expected from the Cyber crime Police to proceed in accordance with law under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., or any other law on which they are relying upon, failing which the amount so kept in FDs may also be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the Cyber crime agency.
8. With the aforesaid direction, petition stands disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE jyoti Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 12-Dec-25 4:01:49 PM