A bank cannot legally freeze a customer's account based solely on a communication from another bank regarding an erroneous transfer; such action requires a valid order from a competent Magistrate or investigating authority.

No.

and Registrar’s

order with

Signatures

WPCRL/1192/2026

Munnavar

--Petitioner

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand

--Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta and Ms.

Irum Zeba, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned

Additional Advocate General assisted by

Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. and Mr.

Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the

State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Alok Dalakoti, learned counsel

for respondent no.4 through video

conferencing.

2. By means of the present Criminal

Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a

direction to the respondents to forthwith

de-freeze/unfreeze Account No.

9639742022 maintained by him with

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Shivalik

Nagar Branch, Haridwar, permit its

normal operation, and quash the action

of the respondents whereby the aforesaid

account has been frozen/restricted

pursuant to the communication dated

10.10.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner's Account

No. 9639742022, maintained with Kotak

Mahindra Bank Ltd., Shivalik Nagar

Branch, Haridwar, was frozen on

10.10.2025. Upon enquiry, the petitioner

was informed that the account had been

frozen on the basis of a communication

received from Yes Bank stating that a

sum of Rs.44,00,000/- had been

UKHC010110072026

2026:UHC:6034

erroneously transferred to the

petitioner's account. Learned counsel

further submitted that, in the absence of

any order passed by the competent

Magistrate, the respondent no.4/Bank

had no authority in law to freeze the

petitioner's account. In support of his

submission, he draws the attention of

this Court to Sections 106 and 107 of

the B.N.S.S., 2023, and also placed

reliance upon the judgment in “Malabar

Gold and Diamonds Limited and

Others vs. Union of India and

Others”, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 297. It

was, therefore, contended that the power

to direct freezing of a bank account vests

only with the Competent Authority in

accordance with law, and not with the

Bank acting on its own.

4. Pursuant to the order passed by

this Court on the previous date, notice

was issued to the respondent no.

4/Bank. Mr. Alok Dalakoti, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent no. 4/Bank, fairly submitted

that the petitioner's account was frozen

solely on the basis of a communication

received from Yes Bank stating that an

amount of Rs. 44,00,000/- had been

wrongly transferred to the petitioner's

account.

5. Having considered the submissions

advanced by the learned counsel for the

parties and upon perusal of the material

available on record, this Court finds that

no criminal case has been registered

against the petitioner. It is also not the

case of the respondent no. 4/Bank that

any order passed by the competent

Magistrate or any competent

investigating authority directing freezing

of the petitioner's account exists. In the

absence of any such order, the action of

respondent no. 4/Bank in freezing the

petitioner's account cannot be sustained

UKHC010110072026

2026:UHC:6034

in the eyes of law.

6. Accordingly, respondent no.

4/Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Shivalik

Nagar Branch, Haridwar, is directed to

forthwith de-freeze/unfreeze the

petitioner's Account No. 9639742022

and permit its normal operation, if there

is no other legal impediment.

7. With the aforesaid observations

and directions, the present Criminal Writ

Petition stands disposed of.