MP HC Unfreezes Company’s Account, Keeps Disputed ₹11,800 in FD; Company May Withdraw If No Magistrate Order Within 3 Months

The petitioner sought directions to revoke a regulatory/cyber hold on its current account and restore its banking facilities.

It relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others and Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others , concerning freezes imposed in connection with cybercrime complaints and the applicable grievance mechanism.

The disputed transaction identified in this petition was Rs. 11,800.

Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court applied Malcolm Murayis , which directed that the disputed amount be placed in a fixed deposit and permitted its withdrawal if the competent Judicial Magistrate did not pass orders within three months, subject to intimation to the police agency.

It also applied Archana , which considered the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SOP dated 10 April 2026 and emphasized proportionate restraints, preservation of only the suspected amount where sufficient, and use of the prescribed grievance process.

The Court held these decisions applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case.

The Court found the present case covered by Malcolm Murayis and Archana .

Applying their approach to the identified disputed amount of Rs. 11,800, it concluded that the amount could be secured in a fixed deposit without continuing to freeze the petitioner’s entire account.

It further left open the Bank’s ability to act according to law and the SOP if another complaint concerning a different transaction were received.

The fixed deposit may be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if no such orders are passed, the petitioner may withdraw the amount under intimation to the police agency.

The Bank may take appropriate action in accordance with law and the SOP if it receives a complaint concerning another entry.