Rubi Sarma vs Union Of India & Ors.

Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. R. Chakravorty, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

The Petitioner herein is running a paying guest of girl students in her house and for the said purpose, the Petitioner maintains a Savings Account bearing Account No.50100737561431 with the HDFC Bank, Panbazar Branch. It is stated that the Petitioner is also operating “Google Pay’ linked with the said Bank Account for money transaction.

The case of the Petitioner herein is that her bank account was blocked pursuant to the direction of the Cyber Crime Police, Thrissur, Kerala. Upon making enquiries with the Bank officials as to why the Petitioner was unable to operate her savings bank account, she was informed that her bank account had been blocked pursuant to the direction of the Cyber Crime Police, Thrissur, Kerala, and was advised to communicate with the said Cyber Crime Police Station. Accordingly, the husband of the Petitioner sent an email dated 07.04.2025 to the Police-in-Charge, Cyber Cell, Kerala Police Department, requesting that the matter be looked into and necessary steps be taken for lifting the restrictions imposed on the said bank account. Thereafter, a statement/ledger was furnished by the Cyber Crime Police, Thrissur, showing that a sum of Rs.7,100/- had been deposited into her savings bank account, out of which only a sum of Rs.7,000/- was stated to be the disputed amount. The Petitioner contends that a part of the total amount of Rs.7,100/- cannot be treated as the disputed amount or as a fraudulent transfer and that if any cyber-crime had been committed, the entire amount of Rs.7,100/- ought to have been treated as the disputed amount and not merely a part thereof. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.04.2025 before the Superintendent of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Kerala, requesting appropriate action in the matter. However, till date, the Respondent Authorities have not taken any action for unblocking the said bank account. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

Mr. A. Khanikar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is running a legal business and there is no fraudulent transaction of any kind related to the aforesaid bank account. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the action has been taken without giving any prior notice to the Petitioner which has caused immense prejudice to the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that blocking of the bank account of the Petitioner has caused extreme difficulties in the running of her business and is also infringing her Fundamental Rights of Trade and Business as well as violation of livelihood.

In this regard, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in similarly situated matters, there has been direction for keeping in lien the disputed amounts and allowing the incumbents to run their respective bank accounts.

In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following case laws:

iii) Crl. Writ Pettition No. 321/2025 (Mr. Kartik Yogeswar Chatur Vs. Union of India & Ors.) [The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur]

In the case of Mohammed Saifullah (supra), the Hon’ble Madras High Court had observed that under the guise of investigation, order of freezing of the entire account without quantifying amount or period cannot be passed as the same would be in violation of the fundamental rights.

In the case of Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has made an observation that a balance was required to be struck regarding the rights of a complainant vis-a-vis the rights of an innocent and unwary account holder who is made to suffer unwarranted hardships due to blanket freezing of bank account.

In the case of Mr. Kartik Yogeswar Chatur (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was dealing with the aspect of the provisions of Section 106 of the BNSS vis-a-vis the order of attachment/freezing of a bank account.

Mr. R. Chakravorty, the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank has submitted that the action taken is strictly in accordance with law and as per the direction of the Respondent Nos. 3. He has submitted that at this stage it is not known about the magnitude of the fraudulent transactions in which the aforesaid account of the Petitioner may be involved and the amount quantified at this stage may not be the final amount. He has also submitted that in the event this Court grants any relief to the Petitioner, some kind of condition be imposed in public interest.

After consideration of the rival submissions, it transpires that the impugned action for freezing of the Bank Account of the Petitioner has been done in connection with some complaints received from the Cyber Crime Police, Thrissur, Kerala.

This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also given an anxious consideration of the respective submissions.

This Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the Petitioner is allowed to operate the aforesaid Savings Account in question with certain conditions. This Court is also of the view that in a given case, a balance is required to be struck between the interest of the investigation on cyber fraud which is creating a menace and the interest of a bonafide and innocent account holder.

This Court, accordingly observes that while the Petitioner should be allowed to operate the aforesaid Savings Account, but the amount of Rs.7,100/- be kept in lien.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: