- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12324 WP No. 7703 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 7703 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI NAYANENDRA KUMAR M., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE M.S.KUMAR R/AT OYHS, 3, BLOCK-K, I STAGE ADICHUNCHANAGIRI ROAD KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE KARNATAKA – 570 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NAVEEN G. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HDFC BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE HDFC BANK HOUSE SENAPATI BAPAT MARG LOWER PAREL (WEST) MUMBAI – 400 013 REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO. 2. HDFC BANK LTD., SARASWATHIPURAM BRANCH GROUND FLOOR, MYTHRI ARCADE KANTHARAJA URS ROAD Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12324 WP No. 7703 of 2025 SARSWATHIPURAM MYSORE – 570 009 REPRESENTED BY BRANCH HEAD MR. DHRUV SARIN. 3. THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER HDFC BANK LTD., I FLOOR EMPIRE PLAZA, LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI MARG CHANDAN NAGAR, VIKRALI MUMBAI – 400 083. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-2 TO RELEASE THE LIEN ON THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER AT THE R-2 BRANCH, BEARING A/C NO. 50100707079561 AS PER THE REQUEST DTD. 23.12.2024 AT ANNX-B AND ALSO AS PER REQUEST DTD. 09.01.2025 AT ANNX-K AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to release a lien mark on the Savings Bank account operated with the first respondent - Bank. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12324 WP No. 7703 of 2025 2. Heard Shri Naveen G.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Francis Xavier, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The petitioner claims to be a software engineer and a resident of Mysore. The petitioner on 17.10.2024 seeks to withdraw amount from the ATM and is known that there is no cash to be disbursed in the ATM of his account. The petitioner is said to have contacted the helpline and then comes to know that the account is frozen due to certain suspicious transaction of Rs.25,000/-. Communications between the Bank and the petitioner resulted in the petitioner coming to know that a cyber crime complaint and issuance of cyber crime notice under Section 94 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was the reason for the blocking of the account of the petitioner. The petitioner then files a complaint before the banking Ombudsman against the HDFC. It is later learnt by the petitioner that the banking Ombudsman has also close the complaint due to technical reasons. The account of the petitioner even today remains debit frozen. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12324 WP No. 7703 of 2025 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is not an accused in any case. The allegation against the petitioner relates to a transaction of Rs.25,000/- for which the entire account is frozen. There is no warrant of such freezement is his submission. 5. On the other hand, Shri Francis Xavier, learned counsel appearing for the respondents - Bank was directed to secure instructions, as to why the account was frozen. The learned counsel has placed on record certain e-mail communications requesting to debit freeze the account of the petitioner, on account of suspicious transaction of Rs.25,000/-. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have produced the materials available on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass. If the account of the petitioner had a suspicious transaction of Rs.25,000/-, it was open to the Bank to seek clarification, as the transaction as observed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12324 WP No. 7703 of 2025 hereinabove was only Rs.25,000/-. The entire account of the petitioner is debit frozen, which has resulted in grave jeopardy to the petitioner or any citizen, who would want to operate his account, as a property. 8. In the light of the admitted circumstance, that the suspicious amount or the disputed amount is only Rs.25,000/-, I deem it appropriate to permit marking of the lien by the Bank on the said amount of Rs.25,000/- and permit operation of the account of the petitioner, as it was being operated, prior to the account being debit frozen. The Bank without brooking any further delay, marking a lien on Rs.25,000/- shall defreeze the account and permit regular operation of the account of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51 CT:SS