MP HC Unfreezes Infinix Infotech’s Account, Keeps ₹38,301 In FD; Petitioner May Withdraw If No Magistrate Order Within 3 Months

The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, including removal of the freeze on its bank account maintained with Utkarsh Small Finance Bank.

Relying on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others, the petitioner submitted that the principles in that decision applied.

The disputed amount identified in this case was ₹38,301.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief against an unlawful or disproportionate restraint on a bank account.

The Court applied Malcolm Murayis, which directed that disputed funds be kept in fixed deposits pending orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate and permitted withdrawal if no such order was passed within three months.

It also applied Archana, including the principle that account freezes in cybercrime cases should be proportionate and that, where the disputed amount is identifiable, a lien or restraint limited to that amount should ordinarily be preferred over freezing the entire account; the SOP dated 10 April 2026 provides a grievance-redressal framework for such freezes.

The Court considered the petitioner’s case to be governed by Malcolm Murayis and Archana and applied those decisions mutatis mutandis.

Since the disputed amount was identified as ₹38,301, the Court directed that this sum be secured in a fixed deposit rather than continuing the freeze on the petitioner’s entire account. It also left the Bank at liberty to act in accordance with law and the SOP if it received a complaint concerning another transaction.

The disputed sum of ₹38,301 must remain in a fixed deposit and may be liquidated only upon an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such an order, the petitioner may withdraw the fixed-deposit amount after informing the police agency.