01Facts
The petitioner sought a writ directing IDFC First Bank to remove the hold or lien on its bank account
¶ 1It relied on *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.*, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, and on the subsequent decision in *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.*, which discussed the Government’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievances concerning accounts put on hold through the NCRP-CFCFRMS
¶ 2–4The disputed amount identified in this case was Rs. 980.17
¶ 602Issues
i.Whether the disputed amount of Rs. 980.17 should remain secured while the petitioner is permitted to operate its bank account
¶ 5–6ii.Whether the hold on the petitioner’s account should be removed, subject to directions safeguarding the disputed amount and allowing action on any further complaint in accordance with law
¶ 603Law Applied
The Court applied the principles in *Malcolm Murayis*, which directed that a disputed amount be kept in fixed deposit and permitted its release if the competent Judicial Magistrate did not pass orders within three months after the police proceeded in accordance with law.
¶ 3It also applied *Archana*, which considered the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SOP dated 10 April 2026 and emphasized proportionality in account freezes, preservation of only the suspected amount where sufficient, and use of the prescribed grievance process.
¶ 4The Court further directed that the police proceed under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) or other applicable law.
¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102
04Reasoning
The Court considered the principles in *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana* applicable *mutatis mutandis* to the petitioner’s case.
¶ 5It therefore balanced preservation of the identified disputed amount against the petitioner’s ability to operate its account: the disputed Rs. 980.17 was to be kept in fixed deposit, while the account was to be unfrozen. The Court also preserved the Bank’s ability to act lawfully if it received a complaint concerning another entry, having regard to the SOP.
¶ 605Holding
The petition was disposed of with a direction to keep Rs. 980.17 in fixed deposit and to unfreeze the petitioner’s bank account so that it could be operated.
¶ 6The disputed amount may be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing that, the petitioner may withdraw it under intimation to the police agency. The Bank may take appropriate action in accordance with law and the SOP if it receives a further complaint.
¶ 6Original Court PDF
M/S Varsha Pharma Through Its Proprietor Shri Vaibhav JainvsIdfc First Bank
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
