Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lingamagunta Anand Rama Kumar vs The State Of M P. on 7 April, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9435
1 WP-11844-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 11844 of 2025
LINGAMAGUNTA ANAND RAMA KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF M P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Hemendra Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Mradula Sen appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No. 2 & 3 that by withdrawing their communication send via email to Respondent No. 4 asking them to put mark debit freeze upon the petitioner's no. account bank 919010089078831 919010089078844, and (i) (ii) instruct/direct Respondent No. 4 to remove / lift the debit freeze mark upon the petitioner's said bank accounts enabling the petitioner to operate and use his accounts as has been done by him earlier.
II. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents specially Respondent No. 4 to remove / lift the debit freeze mark upon the petitioner's bank account no. (i) 919010089078831 and (ii) 919010089078844, enabling the petitioner to operate and use his accounts as has been done by him earlier.
II. Costs of the petition be awarded to the petitioner from the respondents; and IV. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit."
02. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is self employed and is running his own business. He is having account at Axis Bank and his account has been freezed at the instance of respondents No.2 and 3, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Indore and Additional Superintendent of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAAGDEVE Signing time: 09-Apr-25 10:14:18 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9435 2 WP-11844-2025 Police, Crime Branch, Indore as has been informed to the petitioner by the Bank. The account of the petitioner has been freeezed can also be demonstrated by the statement of account, which has been filed by the petitioner, on which the Bank authorities have endorsed that the account has been freezed.
03. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the information received, there has been some transaction in the bank account of the petitioner at the instance of the complainant in the case which according to respondents No.2 and 3 is of dubious nature, which has led to freezing of the petitioner's bank account.
04. 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.
05. 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 complainant, if the disputed amount is kept in fixed deposit, as has been ordered by this Court in the case of Gautam Bhandari (Supra) . Thus maintaining the parity, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition as well.
06. So far as the order passed by this Court in the case of Gautam Bhandari (Supra) is concerned, the same reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAAGDEVE Signing time: 09-Apr-25 10:14:18 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9435 3 WP-11844-2025 "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: -
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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAAGDEVE Signing time: 09-Apr-25 10:14:18 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9435 4 WP-11844-2025 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 cybercrime agencies.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of."
07. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed with a direction to the respondent No.4/Bank to keep the disputed amount as informed to it by cybercrime agency (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 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 petitioner under intimation to the Cybercrime agency.
08. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE Shilpa Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAAGDEVE Signing time: 09-Apr-25 10:14:18 AM