MP HC Orders HDFC Account Unfrozen, Keeps Rs 21,997 Disputed Amount In Fixed Deposit Pending Magistrate’s Order

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s bank account should remain frozen, or be unfrozen while the disputed amount is separately secured.

The court held

The petition was disposed of with a direction that the bank unfreeze the petitioner’s account and permit him to operate it.

It also directed

The disputed amount of ₹21,997 must be kept in a fixed deposit and may be liquidated only after orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate; if the required action is not taken within three months, the petitioner may withdraw that amount after informing the police agency.

The bank may address any further complaint concerning another transaction in accordance with law and the SOP.

01Facts

The petitioner sought a direction to remove the hold/freeze on his HDFC Bank account, account no. 50200067832600.

p. 1

He submitted that his case was covered by Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, and relied also on the later order in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, dated 27 July 2026, which discussed the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievances concerning accounts put on hold through NCRP-CFCFRMS.

pp. 1–6

The Court identified ₹21,997 as the disputed amount.

p. 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s bank account should remain frozen, or be unfrozen while the disputed amount is separately secured.

pp. 6–7

ii.2. Whether the disputed amount should be retained pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate under the applicable law.

p. 7

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principles in Malcolm Murayis, under which a disputed amount may be kept in a fixed deposit pending orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate, with release to the account holder if the investigating agency does not proceed within the prescribed period.

pp. 2–3, 7

It also relied on Archana and the SOP dated 10 April 2026, which require proportionate account restraints, a time-bound grievance process, and preservation of only the suspected amount where that is sufficient to protect the investigation.

pp. 3–6

The Court referred to action under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), or any other law relied upon by the investigating agency.

p. 7

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102

04Reasoning

The Court considered Malcolm Murayis and Archana applicable mutatis mutandis to the petitioner’s case.

p. 6

Consistent with the proportionality approach in Archana, it directed that the identified disputed sum of ₹21,997 be secured separately in a fixed deposit rather than maintaining a freeze on the petitioner’s entire account.

p. 7

The investigating agency was expected to proceed under the applicable law and obtain the competent Magistrate’s orders within three months; absent such action, the fixed-deposit amount could be withdrawn by the petitioner after notifying the police agency.

p. 7