Smt Brijesh Tomar vs State Bank Of India
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26050
1 WP-35771-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 35771 of 2025
SMT BRIJESH TOMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava-Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Raju Sharma-Advocate for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:
"A direction may kindly be given to the respondents Bank to
delete the hold on the Bank accounts i.e. CIF no. |
80412831953, 86342976824, 85386419270 & 85909814279
of the petitioners within stipulated period;
2. Cost. of this petition be allowed; and
3. That, other relief doing justice including cost may also be
ordered
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of
Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others passed in W.P
No.1100 of 2024 dated 26.04.2024.
3. So far as the decision rendered in the case of Malcolm Murayis (supra) is
concerned, the same reads as under:-
"1] This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. Nos.1100/2024 and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA
Signing time: 9/1/2026
10:36:15 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26050
2 WP-35771-2025
1185/2024 as in both the petitions identical reliefs have been sought by
the parties.
2] These petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
“a) This petition may kindly be allowed with cost.
b) To direct the Respondent No. 2 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.”
3] The grievance of the petitioners is that they are engaged in trading of
crypto and virtual currency, and having their bank accounts with State
Bank of India and ICICI Bank, which have been freezed all of a sudden,
only on the intimation sent by the cyber cells of the various police
stations, viz., respondent Nos.3 to 9, to freeze the aforesaid account on
the allegation that the accounts are involved in some cyber fraud. The
amounts of which have also been disclosed, as to how much of the
amount is credited in the account of the petitioners, which are linked to
cyber crime/fraud.
4] Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have
never received any notice from any police station regarding their
involvement in any such offence, and even otherwise, they are lawfully
carrying out their business of trading, and it appears that some person
who was involved in fraud has transacted through the petitioners. Thus,
it is submitted that the petitioners may be allowed to operate their bank
account, and so far as the amount which is said to be credited on
account of the cyber fraud, it is submitted that it may be kept in separate
fixed deposits so that the same can be withdrawn as and when the clean
chit is given to the petitioner. Counsel has also submitted that none of
the investigating agencies have complied with Section 102 of Cr.P.C.
and have not informed the concerned Magistrate about such seizure.
Thus, it is submitted that the petition be allowed.
5] Counsel for the respondents Banks have submitted that the Banks
have not freezed the account of the petitioners on their own but only at
the instructions of various cyber cell police stations, and are bound by
the instructions issued by such investigating authorities. Thus, it is
submitted that the appropriate orders may be passed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA
Signing time: 9/1/2026
10:36:15 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26050
3 WP-35771-2025
6] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7] From the record, it is found that this Court vide its order dated
14/03/2024 has passed an interim order in the following manner:-
“Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
Let notice be issued to respondents No.3 to 9 in WP
No.1100/2024 and respondents No.3 to 6 in WP
No.1185/2024 on payment of process fees within three
working days, returnable within further two weeks time, who
are various police authorities and who have sent the requests
to the respondent No.1/SBI to freeze the account of the
petitioners, alleging some cyber crime. Since the notices have
been served on respondent No.1 SBI by the aforesaid
authorities through email only, the notice of this petition shall
also be sent to these authorities through their respective
emails, so as to expedite the matter. On payment of separate
process fees, the petitioners are also permitted to serve dasti
notice to the respondent No.3 ICICI Bank in WP
No.1185/2024, whereas the other respondents shall be served
through emails. Notice shall be returnable within two weeks
time.
Shri Arpit Guru, learned counsel for the SBI is also directed
to apprise the investigating agencies who are respondents
No.3 to 9 in WP No.1100/2024 and respondents No.3 to 6 in
WP No.1185/2024 about the court's proceeding today, so that
they can also submit their reply expeditiously.
The respondents are directed to file their reply positively
within further three weeks time.
As an interim measure, it is directed that till the next date of
hearing, each of the petitioners shall be allowed to withdraw
Rs.50,000/- per month from their respective accounts.”
(emphasis
supplied)
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA
Signing time: 9/1/2026
10:36:15 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26050
4 WP-35771-2025
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 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 petitioners under
intimation to the cyber crime agencies.
10] With the aforesaid direction, the petitions stand disposed of."
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the
decision in the case of Malcolm Murayis (supra), it will come in the fore that the
dispute in the present case rests on the intimation by the EOW for an offence
registered at Complaint No. 23/2017. The account in question was made debit
freeze for the reason that there were allegations against one Rajesh Kumar Singh
Tomar, who was an employee of State Bank of India. Petitioner No. 1 is the wife
of the said Rajesh Kumar Singh Tomar, and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are his children.
The said Rajesh Kumar Singh Tomar allegedly issued false sanction letters of
various loans pertaining to government schemes, and the said amount was
deposited by him in various bank accounts, i.e., Staff Welfare Account and Staff
Welfare Fund, etc. As per the return of the Bank, an enquiry was conducted by the
respondent/Bank. In the said enquiry, it was revealed that out of the said
embezzled money, some amount had been transferred into the bank accounts
pertaining to the petitioners, in which a hold has been imposed by way of
transfer/cash deposit. The said deposits do not match with the ratio of income of
the petitioners as well as late Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh Tomar.
5. The above facts are the basis of making the account in question debit
freeze. The case of the petitioners is that the complaint against late Shri Rajesh
Kumar Singh Tomar has already been closed by the EOW. Thus, there remains no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA
Signing time: 9/1/2026
10:36:15 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26050
5 WP-35771-2025
legal basis to continue with the debit freeze of the accounts of the petitioners.
Thus, they deserve to be released.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that, in fact,
it was the Bank which made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police,
Economic Offence Wing, Gwalior, dated 28/09/2017 for fraud of an amount of Rs.
112,70,000/-. Pursuant to this complaint, Case No. 23/2017 was registered against
Rajesh Kumar Singh Tomar. However, due to his death, the case was closed.
Learned counsel submits that the course adopted by the EOW is not proper, as
even after the death of the main accused, the issue remains as the embezzled
money has travelled to various accounts. Thus, the EOW was required to carry its
investigation further even after the death of late Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh Tomar.
As such, even after the closure report against late Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh
Tomar, the accounts in question are not being released from debit freeze by the
Bank, as the dispute still subsists and the petitioners are not able to demonstrate
the source of money which they have deposited in their accounts.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the EOW (respondent
No. 2) has provided communications dated 09/05/2024 as well as 27/06/2025
across the Board. The first communication is by the Assistant Inspector General
(Crimes), EOW, Bhopal, to the Superintendent of Police (EOW), Gwalior,
whereby it was conveyed that preliminary Complaint No. 23/2017 has been filed.
The second letter dated 27/06/2025 is issued by the Superintendent of Police to the
Regional Manager, State Bank of India, City Centre, Gwalior, informing that, in
view of the closure of the preliminary Complaint No. 23/2017, the accounts in
question,i.e. : 80412831953, 86342976824, 85386419270,
अत सी आई एफ न
बर
85909814279 It is thus stated
पर दज सभी खात को सीज से मु कया जा सकता हैा
by learned counsel for the EOW that, on their part, there is no objection for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA
Signing time: 9/1/2026
10:36:15 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26050
6 WP-35771-2025
making the accounts of the petitioners debit freeze.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
9. In view of the law as laid down in the case of Malcolm Murayis (supra), it
is clear that the Bank can keep the account debit freeze and the disputed amount in
FDR only in accordance with law. In the present case, only on the
intimation/complaint by the Bank, a case was registered by the EOW. However,
later on, the same was closed. The order by which the closure was made is not
available on record. However, the communication provided by learned counsel for
the EOW clearly provides that the issue has been closed. However, the stand taken
by the Bank, inasmuch as the closure is only based on the death of the main
accused, Rajesh Kumar Singh Tomar, and not on merits, as also the stand that the
proceeds of crime are still in various accounts, cannot be ignored also.
10. In the peculiar facts of the present case, even after acknowledging the
stand of the Bank, it can still not be held that the Bank is empowered to make the
amount debit freeze and seek an explanation itself from the account holders
regarding the source of money. It is not the job of the Bank; the only remedy
available to the Bank is to report the issue to the concerned Investigating
Agency/competent Authority authorized under the law to investigate if there is any
doubt in the mind of the responsible officers of the Bank regarding a particular
bank account. As such, the present petition stands allowed on the terms as stated
hereinbelow:
i. The Bank can continue with the debit freeze of the accounts in
question for a further period of five months from today.
ii. In the above period of five months, the Bank can take steps for
conveying its grievance to the concerned Authorities under the law,
including the EOW, for investigation on its complaint.
iii. If the competent Authority/Court of Law passes any order with
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA
Signing time: 9/1/2026
10:36:15 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26050
7 WP-35771-2025
respect to the accounts of the petitioners pursuant to the complaint/steps
taken by the Bank, then the debit freeze can be continued. In the
absence of such an order, the Bank has to release the accounts in
question on completion of the period of five months.
11. It is hereby made clear that continuation of the debit freeze of the
accounts beyond the period of five months can only be on the strength of an order
of the competent Court/Authority. In the absence of such an order, the Bank has to
release the accounts.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Prachi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA
Signing time: 9/1/2026
10:36:15 AM