IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 312 of 2026 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Axis Bank Limited ……...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. Mr. Prikshit Rathour, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Inspector Janeshwer Thakur, IO, Police Station Cyber Crime SR Shimla, present in person along with record. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, whereby an application filed by respondent No.2- Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain for release of amount of ₹1,49,55,553.83/- seized/recovered by the Cyber Cell Police Station Shimla, upon online complaint No.31212250014913 and FIR No.39/2025, dated 22.12.2025, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 under Section 318(4), 319(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 64(D) of I.T. Act, registered at Cyber Crime Police Station Shimla, came to be allowed, petitioner-Bank has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner-Bank, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though application which came to be allowed pursuant to order laid challenge in the instant proceedings is not maintainable, but even otherwise, no order could have been passed by the Court below without issuing notice to the petitioner- Bank, who, in the event of its being issued notice, would have been in a better position to explain the entry of a sum of ₹1,98,904/-. 3. He states that since the online complaint was made to Cyber Crime Police Station Shimla, and thereafter matter was reported to the NCRP, coupled with the fact that amount, if any, recovered was thereafter to be deposited with the NCRP, appropriate remedy, if any, for the complainant was to approach the NCRP for release of amount. 4. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, though no reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2, but respondent- State has filed status report, wherein it is stated that money, if any, recovered from the fraudsters is lying with the NCRP and Cyber Cell has no role to play in release of the amount. 3 5. Mr. Prikshit Rathour, learned counsel for respondent No.2- complainant, states that once, pursuant to complaint made by the complainant, fraud committed by the fraudsters has been discovered and some amount has also been recovered, prayer made on behalf of the complainant for release of amount deserves to be allowed. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, vis-à-vis order laid challenge in the instant proceedings, this Court finds that Court below, straightaway after having received application from the complainant, proceeded to direct the petitioner-Bank to release the amount, rather, appropriate course available to Court below was to first issue notice to the petitioner-Bank, so that factum with regard to deposit of money, if any, could have been ascertained. 7. Learned trial Court, simply taking note of the fact that the sum of ₹1,98,904/- came to be deposited in the account of one of the fraudsters, proceeded to issue directions to concerned Banks, including petitioner-Bank, to defreeze amount of ₹1,49,55,553.83/-, whereas aforesaid amount is stated to be deposited with the NCRP. 8. Since Court concerned, before passing impugned order, failed to issue notice to the petitioner-Bank, this Court need not go into the other aspects of the matter, rather, deems it fit to remand the case back to the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, to decide the application filed by respondent No.2 afresh, by issuing notice to the petitioner-Bank as well as other concerned/affected Banks, so that they are 4 afforded opportunity of being heard prior to the issuance of direction, if any, in the application filed at the behest of respondent No.2. 9. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition, and accordingly the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 12.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Court below to decide the application afresh by doing the needful in terms of the directions and observations made hereinabove. 10. Learned counsel representing the parties undertake to cause presence of their respective clients before the Court below on 19.08.2026, enabling it to do the needful in terms of the directions contained in the instant order. July 16, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge