Cybercrime-related bank-freeze disputes should be addressed through the prescribed grievance-redressal mechanism.

The petitioners challenged the freezing of their bank accounts by Respondent Nos. 5–11, pursuant to instructions issued by the Assam and Uttar Pradesh Nodal Cyber Cell Officers, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

Petitioner No. 1 alleged that Respondent No. 12, who had been employed as its Project Manager, had committed financial frauds during his employment.

According to the petitioners, Respondent No. 12 subsequently offered to reimburse the defrauded amounts, submitted a resignation letter and self-declaration, and made payments through bank transfers and cash.

Thereafter, Respondent No. 12 allegedly lodged complaints before the cyber authorities, resulting in freezing of the petitioners’ bank accounts to the extent of ₹16,80,950.

Petitioner No. 1 had also instituted a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, registered as CR Case No. 515c/2025, in which Respondent Nos. 12–14 were arrayed as accused.

The criminal proceedings were pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati.

1. Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, should adjudicate the disputed factual questions concerning the alleged fraud, repayment of money, resignation letter and self-declaration, and grant relief against the freezing of the petitioners’ bank accounts?

2. Whether the petitioners should pursue the grievance through the Grievance Redressal Mechanism established under the SOP for NCRP-CFCFRMS, Custody, Restoration of Money and Grievance Redressal dated 02.01.2026?

3. Whether the concerned banks were required to process the petitioners’ grievances in accordance with the said SOP and within the timelines prescribed therein?

The Court applied the limits of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that a writ court cannot ordinarily undertake an evidentiary inquiry into disputed questions concerning the truth of allegations or the authenticity of documents.

It relied on the Standard Operating Procedure for NCRP-CFCFRMS, Custody, Restoration of Money and Grievance Redressal dated 02.01.2026, which provides a grievance-redressal mechanism for disputes relating to cybercrime-related freezing, custody and restoration of funds.

The Court also recognised that the pending criminal proceeding before the Judicial Magistrate First Class constituted an additional forum in which the dispute could be addressed.

The Court found that the petition involved disputed factual matters, including whether Respondent No. 12 had committed fraud, whether he had repaid the disputed amounts, and whether the resignation letter and self-declaration were genuine.

Determining those questions would require examination of evidence, which was inappropriate in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Since the SOP dated 02.01.2026 specifically provided a grievance-redressal mechanism for disputes of this nature, and criminal proceedings concerning the underlying allegations were already pending, the Court considered that the petitioners should first invoke that mechanism rather than seek direct adjudication of the disputed facts in the writ petition.

The Court accordingly directed that, if approached through the home branches of the petitioners’ respective banks, the concerned banks must act in accordance with the SOP and dispose of the grievances within the prescribed timelines.

It advised the petitioners to approach the Grievance Redressal Mechanism under the SOP dated 02.01.2026 through the home branches of their respective banks.

The concerned banks were directed to process and dispose of the grievances in accordance with the SOP and within its prescribed timelines.

If the grievances remained unresolved, the petitioners were given liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.