Remanded

Sri. Jayaramu N v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2026WP/34670/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking to defreeze a bank account frozen based on a fraud investigation. The Court directed the police to report the investigation outcome and re-listed the matter, rejecting the argument that the petitioner should only approach a Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; SHO directed to communicate investigation outcome to Bank and file report in Registry within one week.

Sri. Jayaramu N Vs State of Karnataka — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6401 WP No. 34670 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 34670 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. JAYARAMU N AGE ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA R/A NO 01 JUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE KEMPASAGARA POST KASABA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 562120.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. MAYUR D BHANU.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

REP BY THE SHO AVALAHALLY POLICE STATION REP BY THE HCGP HIGH COURT BUILDINGS AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:6401 WP No. 34670 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

M/S CANARA BANK REP BY ITS MANAGER MAGADI BRANCH HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT KALYA GATE, NEAR MARUTHI MOHAN THEATRE BENGALURU MANGALORE ROAD MAGADI, KARNATAKA 562120.

¶21

MANJUNATHA K AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O KRISHNAREDDY R/A NO 202 KITHAGANURU VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU 560036.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.ADITYA DIWAKARA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. VINAY BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.11.2025; NOTICE TO R3 IS DEFERRED FOR NOW)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R2 BANK TO DEFREEZE THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER BEARING A/C NO. 3546101000852 MAINTAINED WITH THE R2 BANK ANNX-A.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:6401 WP No. 34670 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner, who is aggrieved by the freezing of his account with the second respondent, seeks directions to the second respondent to defreeze his account. The petitioner's cause is in the light of these circumstances as asserted by him.

¶31

[a] The petitioner had lent a sum of Rs.5,00,000/to one of his acquaintance [Sri M Ramesha] because he had held out that he was in dire need of funds to get over certain financial constraints.

¶32

[b] The petitioner had paid Sri M Ramesha Rs.5,00,000/- by cash and after a lapse of three months, Sri M Ramesha assured that he would transfer Rs.5,00,000/-, and

¶33

accordingly a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is transferred to the petitioner's account

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:6401 WP No. 34670 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

on 04.10.2025. After this transfer, the

¶38

petitioner's account is frozen.

¶39

[c] When enquired, the second respondent has informed the petitioner that his account is frozen on the directions of the Station House

¶40

Officer, Avalahally Police Station.

¶41

Sri Mayur D Bhanu, the learned counsel

¶42

for the petitioner, submits that the direction to the second respondent to freeze the petitioner's account is because of a complaint that is filed by the third respondent with the Avalahally Police Station. The learned counsel has argued that the third respondent's information for freezing of the account is because [i] the third respondent had lost a cheque book in the year 2019 and he had filed information in this regard with the afore Police Station which is registered in NCR No.711/2019, [ii] on the date of the present information, he has learnt that a sum of

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:6401 WP No. 34670 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Rs.5,00,000/- is transferred from his account and therefore he has called on '1930' for freezing of the account; [iii] the transaction between the third respondent and Sri M Ramesha is based on instruments dated 04.10.2025 and that these instruments are printed in the year 2022. The learned counsel's last submissions in this regard is based on the photographs of the cheques that are produced as Annexure-F .

¶47

This Court, in the light of these

¶48

submissions, by order dated 31.01.2026, has called upon Sri Aditya Diwakara, the learned Additional Government Advocate who has accepted notice for the first respondent to secure instructions from the concerned from Cyber, Economic and Narcotic Crime Branch, Bengaluru and ascertain the reasons for marking the petitioner's account for freezing.

¶49

Sri K Suresha, a Police Inspector, Cyber

¶50

Crime Police Station, Whitefield Division is present,

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:6401 WP No. 34670 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

and the Officer submits that it is possible that the third respondent has misused the ' 1930' call facility which is available to a person when such person is a victim of 'a cyber fraud' . The Officer also informs this Court that after the freezing, the jurisdictional Police had to conduct a detailed investigation and if it is found out that there is misuse of the facility, the appropriate communication must be addressed to the Bank for defreezing the account. However, Sri Aditya Diwakara proposes to argue that this Court need not intervene because it is still open to the petitioner to make an application with the learned Magistrate who can call for a report and direct the account to be defrozen.

¶55

This Court is not persuaded by the canvass that the petitioner should be relegated to apply with the learned Magistrate when it cannot be disputed that it is the responsibility of a Law Enforcement Agency [LEA] once the First Information

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:6401 WP No. 34670 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

is registered based on information flagged on '1930' to conduct a preliminary enquiry and if it is ascertained by the LEA that there is no reason for freezing, to cause information to defreeze the account. If the petitioner is relegated it will be placing a premium on the misuse of the facility and perhaps even permitting the jurisdictional Police to abdict itself of the responsibilities enjoined in the scheme of

¶60

things. Therefore, the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

[a] The petition stands disposed of.

¶63

[b] The first respondent [ the Station House Officer of Avalahally Police Station, Bengaluru ] is directed to communicate to the second respondent-Bank on the outcome of

¶64

the preliminary investigation into the information filed by the third

¶65

respondent.

¶66

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:6401 WP No. 34670 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

[c] The petitioner is reserved with

¶70

liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the Station House Officer for due compliance.

¶71

[d] The Station House Officer, Avalahally Police Station, Bengaluru shall, within a week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, file a report into the Registry of this Court on the communication to the second respondent.

¶72

[e] The office is directed to re-list this petition for acceptance of the Report on 20.02.2026 .

¶73

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶74

AN/-

Sri. Jayaramu N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Jayaramu N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Ramaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Harish Vs the State of Karnataka

Shashikala Vs State of Karnataka

Metello Sports and Cultural Association Vs State of Karnataka

Yogananda H N Vs the Karnataka State Bar Council

Sri Syed Abrar Vs Canara Bank