ORDER

Heard Ms. Preethya Swarnalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.V. Ramana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. 2. The petitioner approached this Court with the following prayer: “ ..... to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in freezing the petitioner account No 867810110016891 for day to day transaction and activation of ATM Cards cheques basing on the Cyber crime false complaint No. 23708230032990 using word Cyber is illegal arbitrary contrary to the Banking Rules made there under and consequently direct the respondents forthwith activate the petitioner Bank account and ATM Cards cheque day to day transactions and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that one Devarla Sangeeth Kumar lodged a cyber crime complaint against one Keerthi and the bank has freezed the petitioner’s account with all transactions. As the petitioner had contacts with the said SN, J WP_27758_2023 Keerthi, the respondent bank freezed the account of the petitioner also without petitioner being involved in any fraud.

Believing the version of the complainant one Devarla Sangeeth Kumar, the petitioner account bearing No.

867810110016891 had been freezed by the respondent bank.

It is further case of the petitioner that there is no FIR registered by the police against the petitioner nor any instructions for freezing of the petitioner’ account, only basing on the cyber crime false complaint of the said Devarla Sangeeth Kumar the respondent bank had freezed petitioner’s account. Hence the petitioner filed the present writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in freezing petitioner’s account bearing No. 867810110016891 for day to day transactions and activation of ATM cards, cheques etc., 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of 1st respondent Bank of India and in particular para Nos.3 and 4 of the counter, read as under:

“3. 1 humbly submit that as per NCRP ACK Number mentioned above online financial fraudulent transaction is credited to the petitioner's account.

Accordingly following the SOP, the Bank had lien SN, J WP_27758_2023 marked the petitioners account to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and the account has not been freezed as alleged in the writ petition. The petitioner can operate the account over and above Rs.50,000/- without any restrictions. The Bank can lift the lien only after receiving appropriate orders from the Respective Cyber Crime Unit/Investigating of the police officer. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances, it will be better if the petitioner approach the concerned police and get the account unlined. The Bank is only acting according to Standard Operating Procedure prescribed by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (14C) and is in no way interested in marking lien/freezing the account of the petitioner”. 5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, in particular para Nos.3 and 4 (referred to and extracted above) and in view of the fact as borne on record that the petitioner can operate the account over and above Rs.50,000/- without any restrictions and further as per the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP) Ack. No. 23708230032990 online financial fraudulent transaction had been credited to the petitioner’s account and National Cyber crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) indicated that SN, J WP_27758_2023 an amount of Rs.50,000/- had been credited to the petitioner’s account and following the Indian Cyber Crime Co- ordination Centre, bank had lien, marked the petitioner’s account to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and the account has not been freezed as contended by the petitioner and as averred in the coun