$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 08^th December,2025 + CRL.REF. 13/2025 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION .....Petitioner Through: None.

versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

J U D G M E N T

1. The present Criminal Reference under Section 436 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) has been received from the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-08, West Delhi District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Referral Magistrate’) and the reference is sought on the following six points:-

“1. Whether banks / financial institutions are compelled to release the amount in cyber complaints on first come first serve basis or on the basis of earlier complaint or on the basis of earlier order of the court ?

2. Whether banks / financial institutions can be compelled by the court to release the amount in the fraudster's account despite lien not being created due to technical error?

3. Whether the innocent citizens in whose account the fraudsters has sent the money to save his skin or for any other reason, should approach the court where his account is created or where the complaint is lodged by the complainant?

4. Whether the IO or the State can create lien above the first layer without intimation to the account holders?

5. When the release order has been passed by the court then what mechanism is available with the criminal court to enforce such an order if the bank/financial institution fail to comply with the same?

6. Whether the procedure of the state in freezing the accounts above first layer instead of mere lien of the disputed amount is correct procedure or not?”

2. The material placed before us reflects that one Sh. Rishi Galhotra filed an application before the Referral Magistrate. He claimed himself to be victim of ‘online fraud’ and wanted release of sum of Rs. 12,660/-. He had paid said amount on OLX platform to buy one mobile.

3. The concerned police station i.e. PS Cyber West, in its reply, apprised the court that no money trail was available on the portal and since Paytm had been used as Payment Service Provider (PSP), the alleged cheated money was not credited in any account or wallet. As per subsequent reply, it was, however, apprised that the cheated amount had further been transferred to one account held by one Ranjeet Kumar Jha with RBL Bank, which account was inactive and was reported in eleven other cyber complaints.

4. The predecessor magisterial court was of the view that no adjudication was required in view of the aforesaid reply.

5. However, when the matter was taken up by the new incumbent i.e. Referral Magistrate, it took note of the fact that cyber complaints were rising at an alarming rate and the complaints in most of such cases did not get converted into formal registration of FIR and the inquiries were being conducted by the police, without following the prescribed procedure. It also noted that the complainants in such type of matters were facing difficulty in release of amount due to multiple orders from different Courts, all over India.

6. Resultantly, Referral Magistrate formed an opinion that there was requirement of having clarity with regard to aforesaid issues so that no victim of ‘online fraud’ is made to run from pillar to post and, therefore, the aforesaid points for consideration have been forwarded for appropriate decision.

7. Section 436 of BNSS reads as under:

Section 436: Reference to High Court (1) Where any Court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, and is of opinion that such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by t