Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satyam Sharma vs Kotak Mahindra Bank on 7 March, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6031
1 WP-8028-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 7 th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8028 of 2025
SATYAM SHARMA
Versus
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amish Sanghvi - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
1. This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief (s) :-
"(A) To direct respondents to remove the hold / freeze on the bank account of petitioner.
(B) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience may kindly be granted to the petitioner."
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is having a bank account with respondent No.1 Kotak Mahindra Bank. He has been investing in the share market in which he made some transaction in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. His account has been frozen at the instance of respondent No.2 Station House Officer IV Town PS, Vishakhapatnam, District Vishakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) as has been informed to him by the respondent No.1. The fact that account of the petitioner has been frozen can also be demonstrated by his statement of account in which it has been so stated.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the information received, there has been some transactions by certain persons which Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 3/7/2025 6:31:20 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6031 2 WP-8028-2025 have been found to be illegal by respondents No.2 and alleging deposit of amount in the account of petitioner, his account has been frozen.
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 W.P. No.30822/2024 dated 25.10.2024 wherein also this Court had granted 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. 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 respondent No.2 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 parity, 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 petitioner 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 3/7/2025 6:31:20 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6031 3 WP-8028-2025 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' timewithin 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."Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 3/7/2025 6:31:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6031 4 WP-8028-2025 (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 cybercrime 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 . Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed with a direction to respondent No.1/Bank to keep the disputed amount as informed to them by cybercrime agency (respondent No.2), in a fixed deposit, which shall be allowed to be liquidated only after the order is passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within four 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 fixed deposit may also be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the Cyber crime agency.
8. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of (PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE SS/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 3/7/2025 6:31:20 PM