MP HC Unfreezes Man’s Bank Account, Keeps Disputed Rs 2,721.23 In FD Pending Magistrate’s Order Within 3 Months

In brief

The question

Whether the account could be unfrozen while the disputed amount was separately secured, consistently with Malcolm Murayis and the guidelines discussed in Archana.

The court held

The Court disposed of the petition, directing that the petitioner’s account be unfrozen and that he be permitted to operate it.

It also directed

The disputed amount of Rs. 2,721.23 was to remain in a fixed deposit and could be liquidated only after orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such orders, the petitioner could withdraw the amount under intimation to the Police agency.

The Bank remained free to take action concerning any other complaint in accordance with law and the SOP.

01Facts

The petitioner sought a writ directing HDFC Bank to remove the hold or lien on his bank account and permit him to operate it.

¶ 1

Counsel submitted that the case was covered by Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors., and the Court also considered the grievance-redressal framework and guidelines discussed in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

¶ 2–4

The Court identified the disputed amount as Rs. 2,721.23, as claimed or informed, and recorded that the account was frozen.

¶ 6

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

02Issues

i.Whether the account could be unfrozen while the disputed amount was separately secured, consistently with Malcolm Murayis and the guidelines discussed in Archana.

¶ 5–6

ii.Whether the disputed amount should remain secured pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate, and what consequence should follow if such action was not taken within the stipulated period.

¶ 6

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principles in Malcolm Murayis, under which the disputed amount may be kept in a fixed deposit and the remaining account made operable, with the disputed amount available for liquidation after orders of the competent Magistrate within the specified period.

¶ 3, quoting Malcolm Murayis · ¶ 9 · ¶ 6

It also applied Archana, which considered the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure dated 10 April 2026 and set out a grievance-redressal framework emphasizing proportionality, preservation of only the suspected amount where sufficient, prompt communication to the Magistrate, and reasoned review of a continued account freeze.

¶ 4, quoting Archana · ¶ 11–18

The Court held that these decisions applied mutatis mutandis to the petitioner’s case.

¶ 5

It referred to proceedings under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law, without specifying a particular section.

¶ 6

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102

04Reasoning

Applying Malcolm Murayis and Archana to the circumstances before it, the Court treated the disputed amount of Rs. 2,721.23 as capable of being secured separately rather than continuing the freeze on the entire account.

¶ 5–6

It therefore directed that the disputed amount be kept in a fixed deposit while the petitioner’s account was unfrozen and made available for operation.

¶ 6

The Court also preserved the possibility of further lawful action if the Bank received a complaint concerning another entry, requiring it to have regard to the SOP.

¶ 6