MP HC Unfreezes Man’s Bank Account, Keeps Disputed ₹1,200 In FD Pending Magistrate’s Order Within 3 Months

The petitioner sought a direction to unfreeze his State Bank of India account, subject to retaining the disputed amount.

Although the relief sought referred to ₹21,200, the Court’s operative order identified the disputed amount as ₹1,200.

The petitioner relied on *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.* and the later decision in *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.*

The Court applied *Malcolm Murayis*, which directed preservation of the disputed amount in a fixed deposit pending proceedings before the competent Judicial Magistrate, with release to the account holder if the required legal action was not taken within the prescribed period.

It also applied *Archana*, including the principle that account-freezing measures in cybercrime cases should be proportionate and should ordinarily secure the suspected amount without unnecessarily restricting legitimate funds; the SOP dated 10 April 2026 provides a grievance-redressal framework for such account holds.

The Court further directed that the police proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

Because the Court considered *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana* applicable, it treated preservation of the identified disputed amount as sufficient in this case, rather than continuing the freeze on the entire account.

It therefore directed that ₹1,200 be kept in a fixed deposit while the petitioner was permitted to operate the account.

This approach preserved the disputed funds while avoiding an unnecessarily broad restraint on the petitioner’s banking operations.

The petitioner’s account was to be unfrozen and made operational, while ₹1,200 was to remain in a fixed deposit.

That amount could be liquidated only after orders were passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such action, the petitioner could withdraw it after informing the police agency.

The Bank could take appropriate action in accordance with law and the SOP if it received a complaint concerning another transaction.