Allowed

Mr George Abraham v. the Branch Manager

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2024WP/2807/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bank account was frozen on receipt of Rs.19,000 from an unknown account, on an oral instruction of a cyber crime cell. The court held the freezing arbitrary and not in terms of Section 102 Cr.P.C., and directed the bank to defreeze the account.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus to respondent No.1 bank to defreeze the petitioner's SB account within one week of receipt of the order copy.

Mr George Abraham Vs the Branch Manager — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9399 WP No. 2807 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2807 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. GEORGE ABRAHAM S/O C.D.ABRAHAM AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.9, GLAMOUR HEIGHTS, FLAT NO.G2 LOKESH TENT ROAD, LINGARAJAPURAM BENGALURU – 560 084.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. TALHA ISMAIL BENGRE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER IDFC BANK TRINITY COMPLEX KALYAN NAGAR BRANCH KALYAN NAGAR ORR KAMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 043

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CYBER CRIME POLICE, BENGALURU 147, INFANTRY ROAD AMBEDKAR VEEDHI SAMPANGI RAM NAGAR BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 001.

¶15

AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.02.2024.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SURESH V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:9399 WP No. 2807 of 2024

¶20

SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION (ANNEXURE-F) DTD 16.11.2023 DE-FREEZE THE PETITIONERS ACCOUNT BEARING IDFC BANK BEARING THE SB ACCOUNT NO. 10121588217, BRANCH OF KALYAN NAGAR.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider the representation and defreeze the petitioner’s account held at IDFC Bank,

¶25

Heard Sri. Talha Ismail Bengre, learned counsel

¶26

appearing for petitioner, Sri. Suresh.V., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Navya Shekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2.

¶27

Facts in brief, germane are as follows:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:9399 WP No. 2807 of 2024

¶30

The petitioner holds an account in IDFC Bank. On 14-07-2023 the petitioner’s daughter receives an offer letter from Flinders University, Adelaide, Austrialia. Pursuant to the said offer, the petitioner’s daughter was supposed to pay AUD 80,500 and annual tuItion fee of AUD 39,400 which is equivalent to Rs.35,41,610.62. The petitioner in order to finance the education of the daughter is said to have sold his 4 wheeler and the amount received from the 4 wheeler is credited into the account of the petitioner.

¶31

The petitioner then approaches the Bank to make certain transactions only to be told that his Bank account has been frozen on the ground that the petitioner’s account has received a sum of Rs.19,000/- from an unknown account, which has led to freezing of the account. The petitioner then represents for defreezemnt of the account, but in vain and therefore is before this Court seeking a direction.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would reiterate the contents of the petition in submitting that he is not aware of, as to why the freezement has taken place. Rs.19,000/- into his account is on account of some transactions

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:9399 WP No. 2807 of 2024

¶35

between the University and the daughter of the petitioner. He would submit that the career of the daughter would be put to jeopardy if the account is not directed to be defrozen.

¶36

This Court directed the State Government to secure instructions as to why the account of the petitioner had been frozen and directed impleadment of the Cyber Crime Police, of the State Government. It is the instruction that they have received from the Cyber Crime Cell, Maharashtra that all amounts that have come through certain accounts have all been directed to be frozen and therefore the account of the petitioner is directed to be frozen.

¶37

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶38

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. It is rather shocking as to how the account of the petitioner comes to be frozen on a mere oral communication from the cyber crime cell elsewhere. The account of the petitioner is akin to a property and the holder of the account has a right to property. Freezing

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:9399 WP No. 2807 of 2024

¶41

of the account, cannot but be in terms of law as obtaining under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. Nothing of that seem to have been followed. The freezement is, on the face of it, an arbitrary exercise of power, as the Bank is not aware as to why it is frozen; the account holder is also clueless as to why it is frozen. Such drastic act without any rhyme or reason is sans countenance. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an order directing defreezement of the account. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶44

(ii) Mandamus issues to the 1^st respondent/ Bank to defreeze the account of the petitioner within a week of the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

BKP

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8/ cT:SS

Mr George Abraham v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr George Abraham v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sreedevi D.C. Vs M/S Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Spoorthy Integrated Solutions (I) Private Limited Vs Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute (B.M.C.R.I)

Smt Brinda Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Tanveera Samiulla Shariff Vs M/S Icici Bank Ltd.

Mrs Smitha Vinay Vs State of Karnataka

Gnanendra C S Vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.