Karnataka HC Leaves SBI Account Freeze Over Cyber Complaint In Place, Says Man Must Seek Relief From Court That Directed It

The petitioner challenged the debit freeze on his SBI account, alleging that ₹2,00,000 had been transferred to respondent Kuldeep Kumar Yadav without a valid or subsisting court order.

In W.P. No. 33336/2025, he sought, among other reliefs, a direction for refund; in W.P. No. 23766/2025, he sought to quash a Narnaul Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 12 November 2024, unfreeze his account, and obtain action on his complaints.

The Bank stated that the freeze had been imposed in compliance with a notice issued by the Haryana police under Sections 94 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioner also relied on a purported order dated 4 December 2025, but the High Court found the copy was an uncertified printout that did not identify the case or parties.

1. Whether the Bank’s debit freeze of the petitioner’s account, made pursuant to the police direction and the court-related documents on record, could be faulted in writ proceedings.

2. Whether the High Court should grant the requested refund, unfreezing, or other relief, or whether the petitioner should pursue remedies before the court that directed the account to be blocked.

The Court noted that the police direction to the Bank had been issued under Sections 94 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It applied the principle that where a bank freezes an account in compliance with the direction of the competent court or law-enforcement process, the bank’s action cannot be faulted merely for complying; a person aggrieved by the restraint should pursue remedies before the court that directed the account to be blocked.

The Bank placed on record that it had frozen the account in response to the Haryana police direction, and the Court found that the Bank had complied with the relevant orders and documents.

The petitioner’s purported subsequent order did not establish a basis for relief in these proceedings because the copy was uncertified and lacked identifying case details and parties.

The Court therefore declined to direct a refund or otherwise resolve the underlying dispute, leaving the petitioner to seek relief from the court that directed the freeze.

Both writ petitions were disposed of on those terms.