Serial No.05 Supp. List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C). No. 319 of 2024 Date of Order: 10.12.2025 Sima Bhattacharjee Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. K.Paul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.Chanda, Adv.

Mr. S.Khyriem, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.Syngkon, GA Mr. J.N.Rynjah, GA for R 1-3.

Mr. S.Marpan, Adv. for R 5.

Mr. S.Sen, Adv. for R 6.

1. Heard Mr. K.Paul, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S.Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, as also Mr. N.Syngkon, learned GA for the respondents No. 1-3, Mr. S.Marpan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and Mr. S.Sen, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.

2. The petitioner, who is a practicing advocate is a customer of HDFC Bank and operating a Savings Bank Account in her name. On 08-08-2024, on fraud being played on her by unknown persons, she unwittingly transferred ₹99,000/- via 4(four) UPI transactions to an account in the name of one Bijay Barik. On realising that she was a victim of a cybercrime, the petitioner filed an FIR at Rynjah Police Station and submitted a formal complaint to the Bank’s Branch Manager on 09-08-2024, seeking recovery of the funds. On 20-08-2024, the Bank credited ₹ 99,000/- to the petitioner’s account with the remark “TEMP CR UPI CRM 53205437 UNDER REVIEW” but however, the petitioner’s account statement reflected a debit of the same ₹99,000/- on 27-08-2024, under the same temporary credit reference. The petitioner thereafter, made repeated representations to the Bank on 26-08-2024, 28-08-2024 and 30-08-2024, wherein, the Bank in reply thereto, stated that in its internal review including an Internal Ombudsman, no deficiency was found on its part as the transaction was considered authorised and the petitioner was advised to approach law enforcement. The Bank did not re-credit the amount into the petitioner’s account but instead put the same into debit freeze.

3. On the matter being brought before this Court, in the course of the proceedings, a status report was called for from the police who by report dated 04-11-2024, confirmed the FIR and also the bank statement, although recording that Banks may at its discretion decide to waive off any customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic banking transactions even in cases of customer negligence. Thereafter, a second status report was submitted on 10-12-2024, giving updates on investigation and it was reported therein, that the tower location in Haryana, from where the fraudster had made the call from the said mobile number was obtained, and a person who is a resident of Bihar identified. A third status report was submitted on 10-02-2025, followed by a fourth status report on 28-07-2025, wherein follow up action taken by law enforcement had been detailed. The report also revealed that the identified person was one Hari Mandal who appeared before the Rynjah Police Station in compliance with a Notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, and on interrogation, was found to be but an illiterate farmer and labourer who had no knowledge of the mobile connection, which appears to have been obtained by misuse of his Aadhar Card. The report then stated that the investigation was now focused on examining the technical ‘shadow reversal’ process and on trying to crack the larger cyber fraud nexus, while still awaiting responses from the Haryana police and the National Payments Corporation of India for transaction details.

4. A fifth status report was then filed before the Court on 04-12-2025, which included the account details of one Bijay Barik, a resident of Jharbandha, Amathi, Barg 6, Odisha–768042, into whose account the defrauded amounts from the petitioner had been transferred to on 08-08-

2024, but on the same day itself, again transferred into the account of one ‘Subham’ in an account of the Bank of Maharashtra. From the chain of events, what can be seen is that the Bank though asserting that it had acted strictl