MP HC Lets Man Operate Account While ₹2.18 Lakh Disputed Amount Stays In FD Pending Magistrate Order Within 3 Months

In brief

The question

Whether the principles in Malcolm Murayis and Archana applied to the petitioner’s disputed amount and bank account.

The court held

The petition was disposed of.

It also directed

The Court directed that ₹2,18,800 be kept in fixed deposit, permitted the petitioner to operate the bank account, and allowed withdrawal of the fixed-deposit amount if the competent Judicial Magistrate did not pass orders within three months, subject to intimation to the police agency.

01Facts

The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions for the police and Cyber Crime Cell to investigate disputed transactions, trace the recipient accounts and money trail, ascertain whether any lien or freeze had been imposed, and take lawful steps to preserve and recover the amount lost.

¶ 1

The disputed amount identified in the petition was ₹2,18,800.

¶ 6

The petitioner relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors., W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, and Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., decided on 27 July 2026.

¶ 2–4

02Issues

i.Whether the principles in Malcolm Murayis and Archana applied to the petitioner’s disputed amount and bank account.

¶ 5–6

ii.Whether the disputed amount should remain secured while the petitioner’s account was permitted to operate, subject to action by the police in accordance with law.

¶ 6

03Law Applied

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may issue appropriate directions to balance the investigation of suspected cybercrime against the account holder’s legitimate use of their bank account.

The Court applied Malcolm Murayis, which directed that a disputed amount be kept in fixed deposit pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, failing which the amount could be withdrawn by the petitioners on intimation to the cybercrime agencies.

¶ 3

It also applied Archana, including the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure dated 10 April 2026 and its proportionality-based approach: restraint should ordinarily be limited to the suspected amount, and account-freezing measures should be undertaken in accordance with law.

¶ 4

The relevant police action was to be taken under the applicable provisions of the BNSS or other law relied upon.

¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102

04Reasoning

The Court considered the earlier decisions applicable mutatis mutandis.

¶ 5

Applying their approach, it directed that the identified disputed amount of ₹2,18,800 be secured in a fixed deposit, while permitting the petitioner to operate the bank account.

¶ 6

The fixed deposit could be liquidated only after orders were passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; absent such orders within that period, the petitioner could withdraw the amount after informing the police agency.

¶ 6

Any other complaint concerning a different transaction could be addressed by the bank in accordance with law and the SOP.

¶ 6