Akshat Raghuvanshi vs M/S Sar Wave Financial

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26659
1 WP-4782-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
rd
ON THE 3 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 4782 of 2026
AKSHAT RAGHUVANSHI
Versus
M/S SAR WAVE FINANCIAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D. S. Rajawat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt.Monika Mishra Ga, learned counsel for the respondent .
Shri Harshavardhan Top[re appeared for respondent.
ORDER
This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:
"(I) That, respondent authority may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner and
removed the hold from the account of petitioner bearing no. 115422010003500 forthwith.
(II) That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case of the
petitioners is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the
case of Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others
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 1185/2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:07:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26659
2 WP-4782-2026
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.
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.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:07:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26659
3 WP-4782-2026
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 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. On due consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Malcolm Murayis (supra)
shall be applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case also.
5. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose off this
petition with a direction to the respondents/Bank to keep the disputed
amount as informed to it by the crime agencies in fixed deposits, which shall
be allowed to be liquidated only after the orders are passed by the competent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:07:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26659
4 WP-4782-2026
Judicial Magistrate within three months’ time as it is expected from the

Police agency to proceed in accordance with law under the relevant
provisions of the BNSS or any other law on which it is relying upon, failing
which the amount so kept in FD may also be allowed to be withdrawn by the
petitioner under intimation to the Police agency. In the present case also, the
Union Bank of India account of the petitioner bearing Account
No.115422010003500 respectively shall be unfrozen.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed off.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
neetu

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:07:02 PM