Disposed

Gulzar Begum v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Oct 2025W.P.(C)/7679/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A dairy business account holder, not named in any FIR or cyber complaint, sought de-freezing of her PNB account frozen over four small UPI transactions totalling Rs.2,340/-. Following precedent on disproportionate freezing of accounts, the Court allowed the petition with a lien marked.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2/PNB directed to de-freeze the petitioner's account after marking lien on Rs.2,340/-.

Gulzar Begum Vs Union of India & Anr. — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~78

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7679/2025 GULZAR BEGUM .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Ammar Ahmad and Mr. Danish Chaudhary, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Piyush Gupta, CGSC with Mr. Atishay Jain and Ms. Yamini Bansal, Advs. for R-1/UOI. Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, Standing Counsel for R-2/PNB.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R

¶8

% 16.10.2025

¶9

The present petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent no.2/Bank to de-freeze the petitioner’s account bearing no.0124002100003236 maintained by the petitioner with respondent no.2/PNB at its branch at Bara Tooti Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006.

¶10

Mr. Ammar Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has received certain amounts in his account which are allegedly part of suspected transactions undertaken by a third party.

¶11

He submits that the total amount which has been received by the petitioner by way of four different transactions comes to Rs.2,340/-. He submits that the amount of said four transactions varies from Rs.35/- to Rs.1,200/-.

¶12

He further contends that the petitioner is neither accused in the cyber complaint, on the basis of which the petitioner’s account has been frozen,

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/10/2025 at 14:18:12

¶14

nor he has been named in the FIR.

¶15

He submits that the petitioner is into dairy business and the amounts which have been received by the petitioner through four subjected transactions, are against bona fide sale made in the dairy business.

¶16

He further contends that in the affidavit, the respondent no.2/Bank has taken a stand that petitioner has been identified as 5^th , 6^th , 8^th and 15^th layer in the said four UPI transaction chains as per the cyber-fraud complaints. 7. A perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no.2/Bank also shows that the petitioner has not been arraigned as accused in the cyber complaint on the basis of which the petitioner’s account has been debitfreezed.

¶17

At this reference may be had to the decision of this Court in “ Pawan Kumar Rai vs. Union of India and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8936 ”, wherein, under similar circumstances, it was observed as under:

¶18

“ 25. Indubitably, passing of an order of freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner has a serious and adverse implication and invades and encroaches upon his invaluable right to earn and live with dignity. The impugned action, in essence, amounts to a violation of fundamental right of the petitioner, as it directly undermines his right to livelihood, which is integral part of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

¶19

26. Furthermore, when the Investigating Agency has identified a specific sum credited to the bank account of the petitioner, it is difficult to comprehend as to why the entire bank account of petitioner has been freezed.

¶20

27. Thus, the continued freezing of the entire bank account of the petitioner, without even hinting that the petitioner was either mastermind or accomplice in the cybercrime or knowingly received the funds as part of any illegal activity will not be justifiable and

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/10/2025 at 14:18:12

¶23

sustainable, at the moment.”

¶24

In view of the above, this Court finds that the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

¶25

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the respondent no.2/Bank is directed to de-freeze the aforesaid account of petitioner after marking lien on the amount of Rs.2,340/-.

¶26

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶27

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶28

OCTOBER 16, 2025 aj

¶29

Gulzar Begum v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulzar Begum v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Taslim Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Harjinder Kaur Vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Brahmjeet Yadav Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Anand Talwar Vs University of Delhi

Seth Motilal Teacher Education College & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Kamlesh Virmani & Ors. Vs Punjabi Academy through Its Secretary & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Sgt Dibakar Behera

Seth Motilal Teacher Education College & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Dinesh Kumar Vs Central Bank of India

Smt. Veena Verma Vs Delhi Development Authority

Akhlak Khan Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shreya Shree Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sukh Sagar Medical College and Hospital Vs National Medical Commission & Ors.

Poonam Chandel Sinha Vs Delhi Devlopment Authority and Others