MRS SRIVIDYA BHASKAR vs ICICI BANK LTD
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.2819 OF 2026 (GM – RES)
BETWEEN:
MRS. SRIVIDYA BHASKAR
W/O MR. SUMAN REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 204, SANDEEP HORIZON,
ND
2 FLOOR, WIND TUNNEL ROAD,
KAVERI NAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 017.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SURAJ SAMPATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . ICICI BANK LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT:
TH
11 FLOOR, C WING, MITTAL TOWER,
M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
POA HOLDER AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. HARISH E.,
S/O. MR. ESHWAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
2 . M/S. TRANSUNION CIBIL LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
2
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
TH
ONE WORLD CENTER, 19 FLOOR,
TOWER 2A AND 2B, 841
JUPITER TEXTILE MILL COMPOUND,
SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL,
MUMBAI – 400 013.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY EAST CENCRIME PS
REPRESENTED BY THE SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
AMBEDKER VEEDI
BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI PINAZ MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-I FOR R-3;
SMT.RESHMA K.T., CGC FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO. 11728/2025 PURSUANT TO THE ORDER
DATED 19.05.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE XIV ASCJ AND ACJM,
BANGALORE (SCCH 10) VIDE ANNEXURE C ON THE BASIS OF THE
ST
COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 223
3
OF THE BNSS, 2023 R/W SECTION 25 OF THE PAYMENT AND
SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS ACT, 2007 VIDE ANNEXURE A; B) ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION
ST
RESTRAINING THE 1 RESPONDENT FROM INITIATING OR TAKING
ANY COERCIVE MEASURES AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND/OR HER
PROPERTIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERING ANY AMOUNT
TOWARDS THE ALLEGED LOAN AGREEMENT NO.
LPBNG00050327079; C) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY
OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE CIBIL SCORE OF THE PETITIONER
TO WHAT IT STOOD AS ON 05.11.2024 OR WHENEVER AN
ADVERSE ENTRY WAS MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS; D) ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO MAKE ANY ADVERSE
ENTRIES TO THE CIBIL SCORE OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF
THE ALLEGED LOAN AGREEMENT NO. LPBNG00050327079; E)
ST
DIRECT THE 1 RESPONDENT TO PAY THE COSTS OF THIS
PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
4
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before the Court seeking the following
prayer:
(a) “Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing the proceedings in
C.C.No.11728 of 2025 pursuant to the order dated
19.05.2025 passed by the Hon’ble XIV ASCJ & ACJM,
Bangalore (SCCH-10) vide Annexure-C on the basis of
st
the complaint filed by the 1 respondent under Section
223 of the BNSS, 2023 r/w Section 25 of the Payment
and Settlement Act, 2007 vide Annexure-A .
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other Writ, Order or
st
Direction restraining the 1 respondent from initiating or
taking any coercive measures against the petitioner
and/or her properties for the purpose of recovering any
amount towards the alleged loan agreement No.
LPBNG00050327079.
(c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or
Direction directing the Respondents to restore the CIBIL
score of the petitioner to what it stood as on 05-11-2024
or whenever an adverse entry was made by the
Respondents.
(d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or
Direction directing the Respondent not to make any
adverse entries to the CIBIL score of the Petitioner in
respect of the alleged loan agreement No.
LPBNG00050327079
st
(e) Direct the 1 respondent to pay the costs of this Petition.
5
(f) Issue such other Writs, Orders or Directions, which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
2.1. The petitioner claims to be a person of repute, having
done M.B.A. in Marketing and Strategy from the Indian School of
Business, Hyderabad, and is employed in the private sector since
the year 2014. The 2nd respondent, M/s TransUnion CIBIL Limited,
is said to be a non-Government credit information company
operating in India, which maintains credit files of millions of
individuals and businesses and is a part of TransUnion, an American
multinational group. The 2nd respondent maintains the CIBIL score
of a person, which is a 3-digit number that indicates the
creditworthiness of that person and demonstrates his ability to
repay a loan. The CIBIL report, on the other hand, is a record of the
financial history of a person, compiled from information received
from banks and financial institutions, and it includes credit enquiries
and open and closed credit accounts.
6
2.2. The petitioner claims to be a victim of digital arrest, by
virtue of an online fraud that was played upon her by unknown
persons on two dates, one on 17-09-2024 and the other on 18-09-
2024. The petitioner, claiming to be a victim of such digital arrest,
registers a complaint before the East CEN Crime Police Station on
21-09-2024, which becomes a crime in Crime No.759 of 2024
against unknown persons for offences punishable under Sections
66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section
318(4) of the BNS. The petitioner is said to have lodged a similar
complaint on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal on 19-09-
2024. Likewise, the petitioner files a complaint before the RBI
Ombudsman as well.
2.3. What has driven the petitioner to this Court at this
juncture is a complaint registered by the 1st respondent-Bank on
19-05-2025, alleging that pursuant to a personal loan availed in
terms of a loan agreement, the petitioner had issued standing
instructions for payment of the loan installments. The standing
instructions for ₹52,41,514/-, presented on 18-03-2025, are
dishonoured for insufficient balance. Despite the statutory notice
7
dated 11-04-2025, the petitioner has allegedly failed to make
payment. Therefore, the Bank invokes the jurisdiction of the
learned Magistrate under Section 223 of the BNSS and registers a
complaint for offences punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 25 of the Payment
and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. The learned Magistrate takes
cognizance of the offences and issues summons to the petitioner
after registering C.C. No.11728 of 2025.
3. Heard Sri Suraj Sampath, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel
appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Pinaz Mehta, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2, and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned
State Public Prosecutor-I appearing for respondent No.3.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the loan that is said to have been availed
by the petitioner from the Bank is not based upon free consent. The
petitioner was under digital arrest for two days and the fraudsters
controlled her actions, as she had no requirement or intention to
avail the loan. The learned counsel would submit that, under
8
Sections 14, 15, 19 and 20 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the
consent is obtained through third party coercion, fraud and mistake
and, therefore, the entire transaction is vitiated. The Bank fails to
exercise adequate due diligence and transaction monitoring, despite
the petitioner’s 6 years’ transaction history showing no comparable
transactions. The Bank’s own records and website indicate
restrictions on newly added beneficiaries and a transfer limit, yet
transactions exceeding such limits are permitted in the present
case. The Bank also fails to monitor any sudden change in the
velocity and behaviour of the transactions. The petitioner promptly
reports the fraud to the Bank and the Police, resulting in
registration of Crime No.759 of 2024, which is under investigation.
The Bank, being fully aware of the allegations of digital arrest,
initiates recovery proceedings for the loan and criminal proceedings
by presenting the cheque for dishonour. The loan, he would submit,
is availed under coercion and at “digital gunpoint”. Therefore, the
proceedings must be quashed.
5. The learned senior counsel, Sri. D.R. Ravishankar,
appearing for the 1st respondent-Bank would submit that the
9
petitioner has voluntarily completed the digital loan journey by
selecting the ₹50 lakh offer, accepting the loan terms and
authenticating the transaction through her credentials and debit
card grid. The subsequent fund transfers to some other parties
were all authenticated through the petitioner’s credentials, as every
one of the transactions generated a one time password, and certain
transactions which were red flagged by the Bank were cleared only
upon her request and confirmation. He would further submit that
the Bank has complied with all the security protocols and internal
controls, including transaction monitoring. The Bank had no
knowledge of the alleged coercion or digital arrest, which had
occurred through third party communications. The petitioner had
the financial profile and banking relationship to qualify for the ₹50
lakh pre-approved facility, and the Bank’s sanction was based upon
its algorithmic assessment of her income, liabilities and credit
score.
5.1. The learned senior counsel would further amplify the
submissions by contending that digital fraud cases constitute less
than 1% of the Bank’s personal loan transactions, while the facility
10
is widely utilised by customers, particularly the salaried class. The
pre-approved personal loan facility is permissible under the RBI
framework and is not peculiar to the Bank. Other banks also follow
the same procedure. Misuse in isolated cases cannot invalidate a
banking facility which is beneficially used by a larger section of
customers. He would submit that the petitioner, by bringing in all
these allegations, cannot avoid repayment, as the loan is disbursed
to her account and the money is thereafter transferred by her to
third party beneficiaries. He would further submit that the
allegation of coercion, at the highest, could be a matter of defence
requiring factual adjudication, and that cannot by itself stop the
Bank from recovering its dues in terms of the contract between the
parties. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
nd
6. The 2 respondent submits that TransUnion CIBIL Limited
is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
7. The learned State Public Prosecutor representing the 3rd
respondent-State would submit that, upon verification of the
records, it remains a matter requiring consideration as to how the
Bank could have sanctioned and disbursed a sum of ₹50 lakh to the
11
petitioner within such a short span of time. He would further submit
that the complaint registered by the petitioner against unknown
persons is being investigated into.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. They
would not require detailed iteration. Since the petitioner is now
before this Court calling in question the complaint instituted by the
Bank before the learned Magistrate for offences punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 25 of
the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, it becomes
germane to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:
“ COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 223 OF THE BHARATIYA
NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANITHA -2023 AND UNDER
SECTION 25 OF THE PAYMENT AND SETTLEMENT
SYSTEMS ACT 2007 .
The Complainant bank above named respectfully submits as
follows:-
1. The address of the Complainant for the service of summons,
court notices is as shown in the cause title and that of their
counsel Sriyuths. S.M. ANEES AHAMED, B.M. KUSHALAPPA,
12
DARSHAN C R, KIRAN K N, Advocates for SAAN Law Associates,
No.4 (10/2), G Floor, East Park Road, Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The address of the accused for the purpose of court notices,
summons, warrant etc., is as shown in the cause title above.
3. That, the Complainant Bank is a Public Limited Company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a Scheduled
Bank within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949,
also a Scheduled Bank according to the Reserve Bank of India
Act, 1934 having its registered office at Landmark, Race Course
Circle, Vadodara and amongst others having its Corporate Office
at ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai - 400 051 and one of its branch office at ICICI Bank
Ltd., 11th Floor, C Wing, Mittal Tower, MG Road, Bangalore -
560 001. The present Complainant bank since is a juristic and
legal personality having no independent existence has preferred
this present suit through Mr. Harish E who is the Manager and a
Power of Attorney Holder of the Complainant Bank represent the
Complainant Bank That, Mr. Harish E one of the authorized
representatives of the Complainant Bank and is fully conversant
with the facts of the case as per information received and
derived from the records and the books of the Complainant
Bank, maintained in usual and ordinary course of business. Mr.
Harish E duly authorized, empowered and competent to sign
and verify the pleadings for and on behalf of the Complainant
Bank, institute the complaint in the Court, prosecute the
complaint and to do all acts, deeds in general for due
prosecution of the complaint.
4. The Complainant bank submits that the accused had
approached the Complainant Bank seeking for PERSONAL Loan
and a financial assistance for a sum which was granted to the
accused under a sanction letter. In pursuant of the said sanction
letter the accused had entered into a loan agreement vide No.
LPBNG00050327079 with the Complainant Bank and agreed
to abide by the terms and conditions of agreement wherein the
accused were required to pay the installment without any
default.
5. The Complainant bank submits that as per the terms of the
Loan Agreement the Accused is due and liable to pay the total
13
loan amount in monthly installments. The Complainant bank
acting upon the documentary proof and representations made
by the accused extended the financial facilities to the aforesaid
Accused and in pursuant of the above loan agreement the
accused has initiated electronic fund transfer from the Accused
Account No. 0388016024000, ICICI BANK , in the name of the
Complainant bank agreeing to honour the Standing instructions
of the complainant Bank has and when the loan installment fell
due.
6. The complainant submits that the accused being a constant
defaulter had not paid the EMI's in time and as such the
complainant bank's authorized officers had approach the
accused several times requesting the accused to make the
payments, finally the accused had approached the complainant
bank towards the outstanding amount of the above said loan
account the accused had instructed the complainant bank to
initiated electronic fund transfer from Accused Account, the
details of the same are given as under:-
NACH/ECS No.
NACH/E
CS Date
NACH/ECS
Amount
Date of
presentation
S1381803250647 19-03-2025 Rs.5241514/- 18-03-2025
7. The Complainant bank submits that on
LPBNGO0050327079 the Complainant presented the accused
Auto Debit request for its clearance with its Banker, ICICI Bank
Ltd, Bommanahalli Branch, Bangalore, however the same was
returned dishonored with an endorsement Insufficient
Balance vide AD return memo dated 18-Mar-25
8. That the Complainant bank through their counsels had caused
statutory notice dated 11-04-2025 under section 25 of the
Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007, and sent the same
on 12/04/2025 through RPAD to the accused last known address
well within the stipulated period from the date of receipt of
information from their bank regarding Insufficient Balance in
the Accused Bank and called upon the accused to pay the
aforesaid loan installments amount within 15 days from the date
of receipt of the notice, the notice was sent by RPAD.
14
9. That the notice sent to the last known addresses of the
accused address vide RPAD has been served on 17/04/2025 (AS
PER ONLINE POSTAL TRACKING), even after the same the
accused has not paid the amount as demanded by the
Complainant bank so far. The accused has issued above said SI
without sufficient funds at his bank account to honour the
cheque when presented for encashment and thereby committed
offence under section 25 of the Payment and Settlement
Systems Act 2007, hence the Accused is liable to be punished.
10. The Complainant bank further submits that the complaint is
filed in time. The said standing instructions was presented to
the ICICI Bank Ltd, Bommanahalli Branch, Bangalore .
Therefore, this Hon'ble court has jurisdiction to take cognizance
of the offence.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court be pleased to
(1) secure the presence of the accused before this Hon'ble court
and punish him/her in accordance with law, (ii) penalize the
accused by directing him/her to pay the amount of the SI that
has been issued, more fully mentioned above; (iii) to award
compensation to the Complainant bank; and grant such other
relief as this Hon'ble court deems fit and the Complainant bank
to be entitled to, in the interest of justice and equity.”
The sworn statement of the Bank is recorded. The sworn statement
reads as follows:
“ SWORN STATEMENT CUM EVIDENCE OF THE
COMPLAINANT BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT
I, Mr. Harish E, aged about 37 years, son of Mr. Eshwar,
working as manager, POA holder and authorized signatory for
th
ICICI Bank Ltd., having its office at ICICI Bank Ltd., 11 Floor,
C Wing, Mittal Tower, MG Road, Bangalore - 560 001, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:-
15
1. I state that, I am the Authorized Signatory, POA holder and
manager of the Complainant bank in the above case. Hence, I
know the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. I state that the Complainant Bank is a Public Limited
Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a
Scheduled Bank within the meaning of the Banking Regulation
Act, 1949, also a Scheduled Bank according to the Reserve Bank
of India Act, 1934 having its registered office at Landmark, Race
Course Circle, Vadodara and amongst others having its
Corporate Office at ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051 and one of its branch office at
ICICI Bank Ltd., 11th Floor, C Wing, Mittal Tower, MG Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. The present Complainant bank since is a
juristic and legal personality having no independent existence
has preferred this present suit through me as its Power of
Attorney Holder to represent the Complainant Bank. That, I am
one of the authorized representatives of the Complainant Bank
and I am fully conversant with the facts of the case as per
information received and derived from the records and the
books of the Complainant Bank, maintained in usual and
ordinary course of business. I am duly authorized, empowered
and competent to sign and verify the pleadings for and on
behalf of the Complainant Bank, institute the complaint in the
Court, prosecute the complaint and to do all acts, deeds in
general for due prosecution of the complaint.
3. I state that the accused had approached the Complainant
Bank seeking for PERSONAL Loan and a financial assistance
for a sum which was granted to the accused under a sanction
letter. In pursuant of the said sanction letter the accused had
entered into a loan agreement vide No. LPBNG00050327079
with the complainant Bank and agreed to abide by the terms
and conditions of agreement wherein the accused were required
to pay the installment without any default.
4. I state that as per the terms of the Loan Agreement the
Accused is due and liable to pay the total loan amount in
monthly installments. The Complainant bank acting upon the
documentary proof and representations made by the accused
extended the financial facilities to the aforesaid Accused and in
pursuant of the above loan agreement the accused has initiated
16
electronic fund transfer from the Accused Account
No. 038801602400, ICICI BANK , in the name of the
Complainant bank agreeing to honour the Standing instructions
of the complainant Bank has and when the loan installment fell
due.
5. I state that the accused being a constant defaulter had not
paid the EMI's in time and as such the complainant bank's
authorized officers had approach the accused several times
requesting the accused to make the payments, finally the
accused had approached the complainant bank towards the
outstanding amount of the above said loan account the accused
had instructed the complainant bank to initiated electronic fund
transfer from Accused Account, the details of the same are
given as under:-
NACH/ECS No.
NACH/ECS
Date
NACH/ECS
Amount
Date of
presentation
S1381803250647 19-03-2025 Rs.5241514/- 18-03-2025
6. I state that on LPBNGO0050327079 the Complainant
presented the accused Auto Debit request for its clearance with
its Banker, ICICI Bank Ltd., Bommanahalli Road Branch,
Bangalore, however the same was returned dishonoured with an
endorsement Insufficient Balance vide AD return memo dated
18-03-2025 .
7. I state that the Complainant bank through their counsels had
caused statutory notice dated 11-04-2025, under section 25 of
the Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007, and sent the
same on 12/04/2025 through RPAD to the accused last known
address well within the stipulated period from the date of receipt
of information from their bank regarding Insufficient Balance
in the Accused Bank and called upon the accused to pay the
aforesaid loan installments amount within 15 days from the date
of receipt of the notice, the notice was sent by RPAD.
8. I state that the notice sent to the last known addresses of the
accused address vide RPAD has been served on 17/04/2025
(AS PER ONLINE POSTAL TRACKING REPORT), even after the
same the accused has not paid the amount as demanded by the
17
Complainant bank so far. The accused has issued above said SI
without sufficient funds at his bank account to honour the
cheque when presented for encashment and thereby committed
offence under section 25 of the Payment and Settlement
Systems Act 2007, hence the Accused is liable to be punished.
9. I state that the complaint is filed in time. The said standing
instructions was presented to the ICICI Bank Ltd,
Bommanahalli Branch, Bangalore . Therefore, this Hon'ble
court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence.
WHEREFORE, I pray that this Hon'ble court be pleased to allow
my complaint as prayed for in the complaint, in the interest of
justice.
What I have stated above is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.”
The learned Magistrate registers C.C. No.11728 of 2025 for
offences punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The
cognizance being taken and the criminal case being registered is
what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. In
the normal circumstances, this Court would not have entertained
the petition even to its threshold, as all that the petitioner projects
is in the realm of evidence. But the petitioner wants this to be taken
to a new dimension by bringing in a digital arrest. Therefore, what
the petitioner went through and the complaint registered by her are
required to be considered. The flow of the transaction that the
petitioner has explained in the petition is as follows:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The petitioner, based upon the aforesaid transaction, registers a
complaint which becomes a crime in Crime No.759 of 2024. The
complaint so registered by the petitioner reads as follows:
“From,
Mrs. Srividya Bhaskar
w/o Mr. Suman Reddy
Aged about 31 years,
Residing at 204 Saideep Horizon,
Wind Tunnel Road,
Murugeshpalya,
Bangalore- 560017
Phone: +91 8285584284,9902586608
E-mail: [email protected]
MHA Portal No. 21609240047584
To,
The Station House Officer,
Cyber Crime Police Station
HKP Road, Sulthangunta, Shivaji Nagar,
Bengaluru, Karnataka 560051
Sir,
Subject: Police Complaint with regard to online fraud
I, Mrs. Srividya Bhaskar, W/o Mr. Suman Reddy, aged about 31
years, residing at 204 Saideep Horizon, Wind Tunnel Road,
Murugeshpalya, Bangalore- 560017, am the Head of Product
Marketing - Demand, InMobi and my salary account is in ICICI
Bank.
On 17/09/2024, at around 09:50AM I received an automated
call from +91 9251941127 , where one Mr. Ashwin Kumar,
claiming to be from FedEx customer care department and they
25
informed me that someone has been trying to send a parcel
through my Aadhaar details to Iran and this package has been
seized by Mumbai customs as it contains 124 mg of MDMA and
other things.
Then he transferred my call to Mumbai cybercrime department
where person claiming to be Senior Inspector Pradeep informed
me that my Aadhaar has been used across the country for illegal
activities and I am at a high risk and thus, needs to be
investigated immediately.
He then transferred my call to person who identified himself as
Milind Bharambe, DCP Maharashtra, who again said that illegal
accounts have been opened across the country using my details
and an amount of 9.7Cr have been moved through this account,
further he also said that my details have also been used for
drug trafficking, money laundering, funding sleeper cells,
purchase of AK47s. He then sent an Alleged Confidentiality
Agreement of Central Bureau of Investigation and threatened
me not to try to contact anyone.
He then transferred my call to George Mathew who claimed to
be Financial Dept, RBI and added several payees through my
ICICI Netbanking under the pretext of investigation. During the
skype call ICICI bank transferred Rs.49,92,921/- out of
Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh) loan to my account within a
short span of 5 seconds without my approval, verification,
authentication or signature from my end seeking this amount.
At first, they transferred Rs. 1.99 lakh to my HDFC Bank A/c No-
05721930024161 and further, the fraudsters transferred
remaining money to various other accounts of theirs.
I was on video call with them for 10 hours as I was told to not
move, be alone and not disclose case details to anyone. They
did not even allow me to attend my mother-in-law or husband's
calls saying that I am under investigation.
They repeatedly threatened to arrest me if I did not cooperate
with the investigation.
In total, I have lost a huge sum of Rs. 51,29,006.5/- by the
actions of online financial fraudsters aided by the bank's
deliberate and negligence and I request you to take the
26
cognizance of the incident and take necessary actions against
the accused.
The Screenshot showing the Skype Call details, alleged
acknowledgement letter from financial department of
RBI, alleged Confidentiality Agreement of CBI and shared
by the fraudster and the Skype ID is attached herewith as
documents.
My Account details:
Bank: ICICI Bank
Account Number: 0388001602400
Original Account Balance: Rs. 1,36,085.5/-
Amount transferred to my Account: Rs. 49,92,921/-
Total Amount lost: Rs. 51,29,006.5/-
HDFC Bank A/c No-05721930024161
IFSC-HDFC0000572
Amount-1,99,420/-
The suspect account details :
1. Transaction Id: DIL8606927
Account Number: 60505790928
Date: 17/09/2024
Amount: Rs. 19,99,499/-
Bank: Bank of Maharashtra
Transaction Id: DIL8612312
Account Number: 0090002100151568
Date: 17/09/2024
Amount: Rs. 10,00,000/-
Bank: Punjab National Bank (including Oriental Bank of
Commerce and United Bank of India)
Sd/-
Yours Faithfully”
27
This is being investigated into. The complainant also complains to
the RBI Ombudsman. The Complaint reads as follows:
28
29
30
The prayer of the petitioner before the Ombudsman was cessation
of any recovery to be initiated on the score of her availing loan on
digital mode. Immediately after this, the Bank issued legal notice
demanding payment. The notice reads as follows:
“ Demand Legal Notice
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re :- Non-payment of ` 352642.00 due and outstanding on
account of your PERSONAL loan sanctioned vide Loan Account
no.xxxxxxxxxxxx7079
31
Under instructions from our client ICICI Bank Ltd., a Banking
Company registered under the Companies Act and having its
corporate office at Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai and one of its branch office at ICICI BANK LTD, MYTREE
CENTRE NO 4/10, BOMMANHALLI HOUSR MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE Karnataka-560068, we serve upon you the
following notice:
Please note that you had applied to our client above named for
availing a loan and/or financial assistance for your own use and
purpose. In the said application you had also, inter alia, assured
and/or agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions for
availing such PERSONAL loan from our client. You had also
categorically and specifically agreed to pay regularly and/or
punctually the installments including the interest accrued
thereon, month on month without making any delay and/or
default in any manner whatsoever.
That being approached and/or requested by you in the manner
as aforesaid and further believing upon all the statements
and/or assurances made by you, including the assurances of
making regular payments of monthly installments together with
the interest accrued thereon, as aforesaid, our client, granted,
sanctioned and/or disbursed a PERSONAL loan to you vide Loan
Account No.xxxxxxxxxxxx7079 which was duly utilized by you.
You had unconditionally assured and/or agreed to make
repayment of such loan amount availed by you, by paying
necessary monthly installments on the due dates. But inspite of
repeated demands from our client, you have deliberately failed
and/or neglected to pay the monthly installments together with
the interest accrued thereon punctually and/or regularly, and as
`
a result whereof a sum of 352642.00 only has become due
and payable by you to our client as on 07 February 2025.
Our client is, therefore, entitled to receive from you and you are
bound, liable and obliged to remit/ pay to our client a sum of
` 352642.00 only together with all further interests that will
accrue thereon. (The same does not include future installments
due in the account).
32
In view of and under the circumstances stated herein above, we
on behalf of our client and as their legal Agents duly authorized
in that behalf, do hereby call upon you to forthwith make
payment of the aforesaid sum of ` 352642.00 only due and
payable by you together with all further interests at the agreed
rate that will accrue thereon to our client abovenamed. Should
you fail to comply with the aforesaid requisitions within 7 days
from the date of receipt of this notice, our client shall be
compelled and constrained to initiate appropriate Civil and/or
Criminal proceedings against you before the appropriate Court
of Law for recovery of the aforementioned amount, without any
further reference to you, which you may please note. Please
further note that in the event such proceedings are initiated by
our client, you will be held liable for all the costs and
consequences resulting there from.
This notice is issued without prejudice to the other rights, claims
and contentions of our client in this matter.
Please further note that for the purpose of making payment of
the amount as demanded hereinabove you may contact one of
the officers of our client above named, namely Muralidhar
Gunda, contact no. 9500044699
If it so happens that you have already made the above
payment, please ignore this notice.”
The petitioner replies to the said notice again reiterating the entire
story that is quoted hereinabove. It is only after the Bank’s
initiation of these proceedings the subject crime is registered in
accordance with law.
10. All the submissions that are now being made by the
petitioner are in the realm of seriously disputed questions of fact.
33
The case before this Court is one that is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS, and
the projection is that the entire transaction has happened through
digital arrest. The said submission cannot be accepted at this
juncture, as every disputed transaction tomorrow can be said to be
a product of digital arrest, and the borrower would get away with
the loan that he or she has availed of. The sequence of events
between 17-09-2024 and 14-10-2025, the date on which the
complaint is closed by the RBI Ombudsman holding that there was
no deficiency in service, can be seen from the following flow chart:
34
It is seen from the flow chart that, for every transaction, a one time
password is sent to the mobile of the petitioner and the petitioner
herself approves it. The petitioner further approves the transfer of
the money to others as well. In that light, there is no warrant of
interference by this Court at this stage of the case, which requires
evidence, as every instance is a seriously disputed question of fact.
11. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands
.
dismissed Interim order, if any operating, shall also stand
dissolved.
Consequently, pending applications if any, also stand
disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ