Disposed¶24

Rpfas Technologies Private Limited v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC26 May 2026W.P.(C)/4679/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank-account lien release in cyber-fraud case: Delhi HC disposes of unpressed writ petition, removes lien of Rs. 20 lakhs on petitioner's ESAF Small Finance Bank account subject to Rs. 500/- lien, based on SHO PS Cyber Cell status report; account flagged in ~94 NCRP Portal complaints; respondents free to proceed per law on other complaints. Keywords: lien, account freeze, cyber fraud credit transaction, NCRP Portal, PS Cyber South, Acknowledgement No. 20809240070099, Jasmeet Singh.

What did the court decide?

Removal of the lien of Rs. 20 lakhs on the petitioner's bank account subject to retention of a lien of Rs. 500/-; petition disposed of as not pressed, directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to maintain the lien of Rs. 500/-, respondents free to act on other complaints per law. ¶24

Rpfas Technologies Private Limited Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the lien of Rs. 20 lakhs imposed on the petitioner's bank account should be released, given that the police enquiry found only Rs. 500/- of the cheated amount had travelled into the petitioner's account. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Since only Rs. 500/- was found to have travelled from the complainant's account to the petitioner's account, the lien of Rs. 20 lakhs on the petitioner's bank account shall be removed, subject to maintenance of a lien of Rs. 500/-.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner's account is involved in any other complaint, the respondents remain entitled to proceed in accordance with law.

¶17

Key takeaways

The learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to maintain a lien of Rs. 500/-; the hearing fixed for 16.09.2026 was cancelled.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Jasmeet Singh, J.), order dated 26.05.2026 in W.P.(C) 4679/2025, RPFAS Technologies Private Limited v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., with CM APPL. 37022/2026 seeking early hearing. A lien of Rs. 20 lakhs had stood imposed since September 2024 on the petitioner's bank account No. 20240000009097 (ESAF Small Finance Bank) by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in connection with a cyber-fraud enquiry (Acknowledgement No. 20809240070099, PS Cyber South). The SHO's status report showed that although Rs. 20,00,000/- had been credited to the account, only Rs. 500/- was found to be part of the cheated amount travelling from the complainant's account; the SHO raised no objection to removal of the lien while noting the account was involved in around 94 cyber complaints nationwide per the NCRP Portal. Finding only Rs. 500/- to have travelled into the account, the Court directed removal of the Rs. 20 lakhs lien subject to retention of a Rs. 500/- lien, leaving the respondents entitled to proceed in accordance with law on any other complaint. Counsel did not press the petition, which was disposed of directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to maintain the Rs. 500/- lien; the hearing fixed for 16.09.2026 was cancelled.

¶1

$~172

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4679/2025 RPFAS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Mittal, Mr Sumit Kumar Sharma, Mr. Abhijeet Varshney, Ms. Shilpa G Mittalm, Advs.

¶4

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Varun Vats SPC for R-2

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 26.05.2026 CM APPL. 37022/2026

¶6

This is an application seeking early hearing of the present writ petition in view of the fresh status report filed by the respondent No. 2.

¶7

For the reasons stated in the application, issue notice.

¶8

Mr. Vats, learned SPC accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶9

The facts are that a lien of Rs. 20 lakhs has been imposed on the petitioner’s bank account bearing No. 20240000009097 by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 since September, 2024.

¶10

Paragraphs D, E, F and G of the status report filed by the SHO, PS Cyber Cell are relevant and the same read as under:-

¶11

“D. That during enquiry, it was revealed that the applicant's aforesaid bank account had received a disputed credit transaction of Rs. 20,00,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 500/- was found to be part of the cheated amount that had travelled from the complainant's account to the present applicant's account. Accordingly, a lien was marked in respect

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 03/06/2026 at 12:45:37

¶14

of the said transaction.

¶15

E. That during further enquiry, efforts were made to verify and trace the other beneficiary bank accounts and the persons involved; however, despite sincere efforts, no substantial clue regarding the alleged accused persons could be found so far. F. That in view of the above facts and circumstances, the undersigned has no objection if the lien amounting to Rs 20,00,000/- marked in applicant's ESAF Small Finance Bank Account No. 20240000009097 in connection with Acknowledgement No. 20809240070099, PS Cyber South, New Delhi, is removed from the applicant's aforesaid bank account. G. However, it is pertinent to mention that the applicant's Bank Account No. 20240000009097 is involved in around 94 cyber complaints across the nation as per NCRP Portal. . . .”

¶16

In view of above it is clear that only a sum of Rs. 500/- has been found to have travelled from the complainant’s account to the petitioner’s account.

¶17

In view of the status report, subject to a lien of Rs. 500/- to be maintained on the petitioner’s account, the lien of Rs. 20 lakhs shall be removed. In case there is any other complaint where the account of the petitioner is involved, the respondents shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law.

¶18

The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶19

The order be communicated to the respondent No.3.

¶20

W.P.(C) 4679/2025

¶21

In view of the order passed above, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 03/06/2026 at 12:45:37

¶24

does not press the petition and the same is disposed of directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to maintain a lien of Rs. 500/-.

¶25

The next date of hearing i.e., 16.09.2026 stands cancelled.

¶26

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶27

MAY 26, 2026 / (MS)

¶28

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 03/06/2026 at 12:45:37

Rpfas Technologies Private Limited v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rpfas Technologies Private Limited v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Mannish Garg Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Smt Arati Ray Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Ms. Aarti Mathur & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Surampudi Jahnavi, Vs National Testing Agency (Nta) & Ors.

Shekhar Singh Jadaun Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sameer Johry Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr. Ishwarprasad Gilada Vs Union of India and Ors.

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Mahesh Kumar

Surampudi Jahnavi, Vs National Testing Agency (Nta) & Ors.

Patnam Abdul Azeez & Anr. Vs National Testing Agency & Ors.

Mr. Manan Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Nehru Gram Bharti Faculty of Pharmacy Vs Pharmacy Council of India

Charanjeet Singh Chawla Vs Delhi Development Authority

Jai Jyoti College of Physical Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education through Its Chairperson & Anr.