Madhya Pradesh High CourtBanking and Finance LawAdministrative and Public Law

MP HC Unfreezes Bank Account, Keeps ₹10,000 In Disputed Cyber-Fraud Transactions In FD Pending Magistrate’s Order

Ashvin Patidarv.Branch Manager Axis Bank

MP HC Unfreezes Bank Account, Keeps ₹10,000 In Disputed Cyber-Fraud Transactions In FD Pending Magistrate’s Order. Ashvin Patidar vs Branch Manager Axis Bank. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount is separately secured.

The court held

The Court disposed of the petition and directed the Bank to unfreeze the petitioner’s account and permit its operation.

It also directed

The disputed ₹10,000 must be kept in a fixed deposit and may be liquidated only upon an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

If no such order is passed within that period, the petitioner may withdraw the amount under intimation to the police agency.

01Facts

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking directions to unfreeze his Axis Bank account.

¶ 1

Relying on *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.* and *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.*, he sought relief from the account freeze.

¶ 2–4

The Court recorded that the disputed amount comprised two entries totalling ₹10,000.

¶ 6

The judgment does not set out further details of the underlying complaint or the circumstances of the freeze.

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount is separately secured.

¶ 5–6

ii.Whether the disputed amount should remain secured pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate, and what should follow if no such order is passed within the specified period.

¶ 6

03Law Applied

Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue appropriate writs and directions.

In *Malcolm Murayis*, the Court directed that disputed funds be kept in fixed deposits, subject to orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, failing which the amount could be withdrawn by the account holder under intimation to the cybercrime agency.

¶ 3

The *Archana* decision set out the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SOP dated 10 April 2026 and guidelines requiring proportionate account restraints, preservation of only the suspected amount where sufficient, and timely action by banks and investigating agencies.

¶ 4

The Court held that these decisions applied *mutatis mutandis* to this case.

¶ 5

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102

04Reasoning

Applying *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana*, the Court treated the ₹10,000 in disputed transactions as capable of being secured separately, without continuing the freeze on the petitioner’s entire account.

¶ 5–6

It directed that the disputed sum be placed in a fixed deposit, preserving it pending an order by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, while allowing the petitioner to operate the account.

¶ 6

The Court also left the Bank free to act in accordance with law and the SOP if it received a complaint concerning another transaction.

¶ 6

05Holding

The Court disposed of the petition and directed the Bank to unfreeze the petitioner’s account and permit its operation.

¶ 6–7

The disputed ₹10,000 must be kept in a fixed deposit and may be liquidated only upon an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

¶ 6–7

If no such order is passed within that period, the petitioner may withdraw the amount under intimation to the police agency.

¶ 6–7
Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

Ashvin PatidarvsBranch Manager Axis Bank

Madhya Pradesh High Court · November 04, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment