Disposed

S.R. Filling Station v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Sept 2025CW/12207/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A filling station's ICICI Bank account was frozen following cyber-crime complaints from several States despite the petitioner claiming no involvement. The Court directed defreezing of the account for operation, freezing only the disputed Rs.4,71,373.22/- amount, subject to cooperation with investigation and possible restitution.

What did the court decide?

Account ordered defreezed for operation; lien limited to disputed Rs.4,71,373.22/-; petitioner to cooperate and not close account; Bank may transfer disputed sum to original source account.

S.R. Filling Station Vs the State of Rajasthan — Banking and Recovery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:38182]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12207/2025

¶4

S.R. Filling Station, Through Its Proprietor Susheel Kumar Meena Aged About 38 Years, Address- C-13, Salegrampura Mahal Road, Ramchandrapura, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan, through Director General of Police, Police Directorate, Jaipur (Raj).

¶8

The Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Police Commissionerate, Khasa Kothi, M.I. Road, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶9

Branch Manager (Nodal Officer), ICICI Bank Ltd, AddressJagatpura Mahal Road Branch, Block B/c.7, Central Spine, Mahal Road, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj) - 302017.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Avinash Dhanju
For Respondent(s)	: Ms.Suruchi Kasliwal with
	Mr.Vikram Singh

¶12

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

18/09/2025

¶15

The instant writ petition has been preferred with the

¶16

following prayer:

¶17

In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that his Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

¶18

i. issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus, thereby directing the Respondent No.3 (ICICI Bank) to immediately defreeze the current account of the Petitioner bearing Account No.729905000204, maintained at ICICI Bank, Jagatpura Mahal Road Branch, Jaipur, and further direct the Respondents to restrict the lien/hold, if any, only to the disputed amount of

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:38182]

[CW-12207/2025]

Rs.4,71,373.22/-, and not beyond that, subject to the outcome of any lawful investigation;

¶23

ii. Direct the Respondent Bank to provide written reasons for the freezing of the Petitioner’s account, along with copies of any communication received from the Cyber Crime Authorities; and further, award the costs of this petition in favour of the Petitioner.

¶24

iii. Pass such other orders or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶25

By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondent-Bank for defreezing his account No. 729905000204.

¶26

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no concerned whatsoever with any cyber crime committed by anyone, even then his entire account has been freezed. Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation as and when required.

¶27

Counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments.

¶28

Counsel for the respondent-State submitted that several complaints regarding cyber crimes were received in the State of Telangana, West Bengal and Maharashtra, consequently, orders have been passed to freeze the petitioner’s account.

¶29

In view of the submissions made before this Court, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with directions to the respondent-Bank to defreeze the Bank account of the petitioner bearing No. 729905000204 at ICICI Bank, Jagatpura Mahal Road Branch, Jaipur and he may be allowed to operate and make transactions in the said Bank.

[2025:RJ-JP:38182]

[CW-12207/2025]

(3 of 3)

The respondents are directed to freeze the disputed amount i.e. Rs.4,71,373.22/-, which is allegedly involved in the fraudulent transaction.

¶34

It is made clear that the petitioner will co-operate with Bankauthorities and investigating agency and will appear before them as and when required.

¶35

This Court also observes that the petitioner shall not close or discontinue the aforesaid account till the investigating agency and Bank authorities permit him to do so.

¶36

It is further ordered that after investigation, if the involvement of the petitioner is found in any illegal transaction, he shall be liable to pay amount involved in the aforesaid illegal transaction and will face inquiry/investigation as per law.

¶37

It is further ordered that the respondent-Bank shall be at liberty to transfer the amount to the original account from which it was credited to petitioner’s account.

¶38

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶39

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶40

Aayush Sharma /16

S.R. Filling Station v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.R. Filling Station v. the State of Rajasthan

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

M/S Balaji Trading Company Vs the Rajasthan State Industrial Development Corporation

Rajendra S/O Daujiram Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilip Singh Kashyap S/O Shri Chandan Singh Vs Rajeev Singh S/O Late Shri Rishi Singh

Smt Sunita Sankhala Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Anish Kumar Dhayal S/O Shree Ram Vs Reserve Bank of India

Arihant Dream Infra Project Limited, Vs M/S Shubh Builders and Developers