HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8513 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Shri Prashant Kumar, Advocate filed his 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for respondent no.3. 3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "i. to issue a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.4 to provide all assistance to the petitioner bank in returning of amount of Rs.4,74,800/- from respondent nos.2 and 3 which was wrongly credited in the account no.269301508542 in the name of Sri Vankata Rama Rao Thoram maintained with ICICI Bank with UTR No.SBIN424202156011. ii. to issue any other writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper under the circumstances of the case. iii. to allow the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain amount of respondent no.5 was seized on account of cyber crime from him. He further submits that the petitioner-bank received an order dated 26.06.2024 passed by learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Telengana State, by means of which an amount of Rs.7,52,184/- was directed to be credited in account of respondent no.5 on furnishing personal bond and surety from the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Saxena Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. State Bank Of India Thru. Chief Manager Ajay Misra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Bank account of M/s. Manoj Trading Company, existing in ADB Bahraich Branch of State Bank of India, which was received on 02.07.2024. He further submits that prior to the said order two such orders dated 11.06.2024 and 05.06.2024 passed by the ACJM, Barackpore Court, North 24 Pargana, West Bengal and 45th ACJM, Bangalore City respectively were received on 12.06.2024 and 28.06.2024 respectively. He further submits that as per the Standard Operating Procedure of putting of hold/stop in account dated 31.05.2021 the attachment orders are to be complied with in its chronological order. However instead of complying the earlier orders passed by different courts, the order passed on 26.06.2024 was complied inadvertently, on account of which the petitioner-bank is unable to comply the remaining two earlier orders passed by the different courts due to insufficiency of funds in the said account after compliance of the order dated 26.06.2024, therefore, the petitioner-bank is facing adverse orders against it from the said courts. He further submits that on account of above the petitioner requested to the respondent no.3-Bank for refund of the amount transferred on account of the attachment and release of the amount vide order dated 26.06.2024. The respondent no.3-bank assured for taking appropriate decision in consultation with the account holder, but till date nothing has been done, therefore, the petitioner-bank is constrained to approach this court. 5. On the basis of above learned counsel for the petitioner-bank submits that respondent no.3 be directed to provide assistance to the petitioner-bank for return of the amount of Rs.4,74,800/- inadvertently credited in the account of the respondent no.5 on account of the aforesaid transaction. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for respondent no.3 opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner-bank. It has been submitted that once the order passed by the court has been complied it cannot be reversed by this court. It has also been argued that there is no such provision under the aforesaid SOP also. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record of this petition. The SOP annexed with the petition though provides for compliance of the attachment orders received by the Branch in chronological order, but there is no provision that CRLP No. 8513 of 2025 2 once the compliance has been made the compliance can be reversed. Thus no such direction can be issued by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise once an order passed by competent court of law has been complied, it cannot be frustrated except in accordance with law. Thus this petition is misconceived and lacks merit. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. . September 23, 2025 Banswar CRLP No. 8513 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM NARESH BANSWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench