- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18546 WP No. 16072 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.16072 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI.PRAMODA GOWDA T P S/O SRI.PRAKASH T AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT TARABENAHALLI VILLAGE CHOWLAGALA CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 225 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VINAY SHREYAS K V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SUBRAMANYAPURA P.S HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 2. SRI.M.PUTTASWAMY S/O SRI.LATE MALAVYYA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT.C-9, CENTRAL SILK BOARD STAFF, QUATROUS, VANILLA ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R.1) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18546 WP No. 16072 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DECLARING THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1- POLICE MAKING LIEN IN THE PETITIONER BANK ACCOUNT BEARING NO.1172500101542801, KARNATAKA BANK, CITY CIVIL COURT BRANCH, BENGALURU WITHOUT SUFFICIENT REASON AND THE PETITIONER NOT INVOLVING IN THE OFFENCE AS TOTALLY ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ALSO CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 - POLICE TO REMOVE THE LIEN AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/ OF THE PETITIONER BANK ACCOUNT AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 - POLICE NOT TO KEPT THE BALANCE IN LIEN ACCOUNT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner, in the present writ petition, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in marking a lien over the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.1172500101542801 to the extent of ₹50,000/-, as reflected in Annexure–E, as illegal and unsustainable in law. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18546 WP No. 16072 of 2025 2. The petitioner further seeks a declaration that the act of marking lien over the said sum of ₹50,000/- is unconstitutional, arbitrary and without authority of law, and consequently, prays for a direction to respondent No.1 to forthwith remove the lien and restore the normal operation of the petitioner’s bank account. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the sum of ₹50,000/- credited to the account was transferred by the son of respondent No.2 towards payment of professional/legal fees and does not partake the character of any tainted or disputed amount warranting such lien. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the material placed on record. 5. Before adverting to the legality of the action of respondent No.1 in marking lien over the sum of ₹50,000/-, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the complaint lodged by the son of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18546 WP No. 16072 of 2025 respondent No.2, which is produced at Annexure–A1. The relevant paragraph reads as follows: "ಈರುಾೆ ಾಂಕ: 26-08-2024 ರಂದು ನಮ ೈ ಸುತಲೂ ಕರುವ ಾಂೌಂ ಅನು" #ಾ$ೋ ೆಡ'(ಾ)$ೆಂದು 'ಷಯ ,-ದು ಸ.ಳೆ0 ಬಂದು '2ಾ34(ಾಗ ಎ.ಎ7. 8ವಕು9ಾಮ: ನಮೆ ೊ;4ದ ೈ ಅರ'ಂ< ಎಂಬುವವ3ೆ ೇ3(ಾ)(ೆ ಎಂದು ಸ=,ೆ ಸಂಬಂ>4ದ (ಾಖ@ಾ,ಗಳನು" Aೕ;ದರು. ಈ ಬೆ ಎ.ಎ7 8ವಕು9ಾB ನನು" '2ಾ34(ಾಗ Cೌ(ಾ, CೋD E; ಆ ೈ ಅನು" Gೇ$ೆ #ಾ3ಾದರೂ 9ಾ$ಾಟ 9ಾ;ಸುIೇೆಂದು ಉKಾLೆ ಉತರವನು" Aೕ;ರುIಾೆ. ನಂತರ ಾವMಗಳN ಎ.ಎ7 8ವಕು9ಾB, ಗಂಾ$ಾಂ OಾದP ಎಂಬುವವರು Aೕ;ದ Q.R.ಎ (ಾಖ@ಾ,ಗಳನು" ಪ38ೕTಸ@ಾ ಎ.ಎ7 8ವಕು9ಾB, ಗಂಾ$ಾಂ OಾಧP, 8Vೕಮ, ಲWXೕ, ಮಂಜುಾZ.;, ರಘ] ;, ನಟ$ಾ_ ಮತು ಇತರರು ೇ3 ಒಳಸಂಚು ರೂR4, ವಯಾcದ ನನೆ dೕಸ 9ಾಡುವ ಉ(ೆ)ೕಶ ಂದ ಅರ'ಂ< ಎಂಬುವವರ Cೆಸ3ನTDರುವ ಉತರಹ-g Cೋಬ-, ವಡhರಾಳi ಾVಮದ ಸೇ: ನಂ.8 ೆ ಸಂಬಂ>4ದ ನಕT Q.R.ಎ ಪV,ಯನು" ಸೃk 9ಾ;ೊಂಡು ನನೆ ೇl ಅVೕmಂ ಅನು" 9ಾ;ೊಟು ವಂn4 dೕಸ 9ಾ;ರುವMದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂ ರುತ(ೆ. ನಂತರ ಾನು ಮತು ನನ" ಮಗ ಇಬoರೂ ಎ.ಎ7 8ವಕು9ಾBೆ ನಮೆ #ಾವM(ೇ ೈ Gೇಡ ನಮೆ ೊಡGೇಾದ ಒಟು ರೂ.1,19,00,000/- ಹಣವನು" ಾಪಸುc ೊ; ಎಂದು ೇ-(ಾಗ 8ವಕು9ಾB ನಮನು" ಉ(ೆ)ೕ84 ನಕT (ಾಖ@ಾ,ಗಳನು" ಸೃk4 dೕಸ 9ಾ;ದರೂ Aಮೆ ೊIಾಗT@ಾ=, Aಮೆ ಾನು #ಾವ ಹಣವನು" ೊKೋ ಲD, #ಾP ೈ ೊಡಲD ಏ7 GೇಾದೂV 9ಾKೊ0-, ಮIೊಂದು ಸಲ ಹಣ ೇ-ೊಂಡು ಬಂ(ೆV, Aನ"ನು" Aಮ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರನು" Qೕವಂತಾ ಇರಲು EಡುವM ಲDೆಂದು ೊ@ೆ Gೆದ3ೆ Cಾr ಕಳNs4ರುIಾೆ. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18546 WP No. 16072 of 2025 8ವಕು9ಾB ಎ.ಎ7 @ ಪMA ಎಂGಾತನು ವಯಾcದ) ನನ"ನು" dೕಸ 9ಾಡುವ ಉ(ೆ)ೕಶ ಂದ ನನ"ನು" ನಂE4, ನನೆ ೊ,ಲDದ Cಾೇ ನನ" Cೆಸ3ನTDದ) ಮೆಯನು" ತನ" Cೆಸ3ೆ ೋಂದtೆ 9ಾ;4ೊಂಡು dೕಸ 9ಾ;ದ)ಲD(ೇ, ಒಳಸಂಚು ರೂR4ೊಂಡು ಅರ'ಂದ ಎಂಬುವವರ Cೆಸ3ನTDರುವ ಉತರಹ-g Cೋಬ-, ವಡhರಾಳi ಾVಮದ ಸೇ: ನಂ.8ೆ ೇ3ದ ಸ=,ೆ ಸಂಬಂ>4ದ ನಕT (ಾಖ@ಾ,ಗಳನು" ಸೃk4ೊಂಡು ನನೆ ಶುದu ಕVಯ 9ಾ;ೊಟು ನಂEೆ (ೊVೕಹೆಸ dೕಸ 9ಾ;ರುವ 8ವಕು9ಾB ಎ.ಎ7 @ ಪMA, Q.ಎx ಗಂಾ$ಾಂ OಾದP, ಲWXೕ, ಮಂಜುಾZ ;, ರಘ] ;, ನಟ$ಾ_ ಮತು ಇತರರ 'ರುದu ಾನೂನು ಕVಮ ೈೊಂqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ PÉÆr¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è ೇ-ೊಳNgIೇೆ." 6. This Court also deems it fit to extract the cause title and first paragraph of the suit filed in O.S.No.678/2024, which reads as under; "IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU O.S.No.678/2024 BETWEEN: 1. Sri.Manjunath D S/o Sri.Devaraj & Smt.Parvathy Aged about 44 years No.96, 14th Main Road 8th H Road, Indira Colony Vijayanagar, Attiguppe Bengaluru - 560040 2. Sri.M.Puttaswamy S/o Sri.Malavaiah Aged about 71 years R/at No.170B, 2nd Floor - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18546 WP No. 16072 of 2025 Vijayanagar, Attiguppe Bengaluru - 560040 AND: Sri.Santosh Rao B.J S/o Sri.Govinda Rao Aged about 38 years R/at No.38, Kaggallipura Tatteguppe Grama Bengaluru - 560082 PLAINT UNDER VII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 26 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 The plaintiff submits as follows: 1. The address of the plaintiff for the purpose of notice, summons from this Hon'ble Court is as shown in the cause list above and be served on their counsel, K & P Associates, Pramoda Gowda, T.P, No-113, 1st floor, 2nd Main Road, Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru - 560 020. Ph:9481116996, E Mail:pgowda.llbmba@gmail.com." (emphasis supplied) 7. On a careful and meticulous examination of the allegations made in the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, this Court finds that there are absolutely no allegations whatsoever attributed against the present petitioner. On the contrary, the tenor and substance of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18546 WP No. 16072 of 2025 complaint would indicate that there exists an inter se property dispute between respondent No.2, his son and certain third parties, which appears to have culminated in the lodging of the complaint. The gist of the allegations is directed against third parties, namely, one Prabhakar Rao and Premkumar, alleging fraudulent acts in relation to certain transactions. The complaint also makes a reference to transfer of amounts on 15.06.2023 and 24.07.2023. However, nowhere in the complaint is the petitioner either named as an accused or even remotely implicated in the alleged acts. The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate, asserts that the sum of ₹50,000/- received by him was towards professional/legal fees, paid by respondent No.2 through his son’s account in connection with legal services rendered, including drafting of pleadings and institution of proceedings. 8. This Court is constrained to observe that the act of marking a lien or debit-freezing of a bank account pursuant to the registration of an FIR is a drastic and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18546 WP No. 16072 of 2025 serious measure, which cannot be resorted to in a routine, mechanical or arbitrary manner. Such action has far- reaching civil consequences, more particularly when it is directed against a practicing Advocate. Freezing or restricting operations of a bank account directly impinges upon the financial autonomy of an individual and, in the case of a legal practitioner, has the potential to severely disrupt his professional engagements, day-to-day functioning, and obligations towards clients. The legal profession rests significantly on reputation, credibility and trust; any precipitative action such as marking of lien, without there being even a whisper of allegation, inevitably casts an unwarranted cloud over the professional integrity of the Advocate concerned. 9. The conduct of respondent No.1 – Investigating Officer, in the present case, demonstrates a clear lack of application of mind and a palpable insensitivity to the consequences of such action. Without even prima facie ascertaining whether the amount in question bore any - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18546 WP No. 16072 of 2025 nexus to the alleged crime or constituted proceeds thereof, respondent No.1 has proceeded to direct the bank to mark a lien over the petitioner’s account. The material on record unmistakably indicates that the sum of ₹50,000/- was received by the petitioner towards legitimate professional fees. Such an amount, by no stretch of imagination, could be branded or treated as ‘crime proceeds’. The precipitate action of the Investigating Officer, therefore, not only borders on arbitrariness but also results in unwarranted prejudice to the petitioner’s professional standing. 10. A holistic reading of the complaint further reinforces that the FIR has been registered only against third parties and not against the present petitioner. In the absence of any allegation, much less any material linking the petitioner to the alleged offence, the action of respondent No.1 in issuing a communication to the Karnataka Bank to mark a lien over the petitioner’s account is wholly unjustified and untenable. The - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18546 WP No. 16072 of 2025 indiscriminate exercise of such power, particularly against a member of the Bar, sends a deleterious signal to litigants, fellow members of the legal fraternity, and the institution of justice at large. It tends to erode confidence and creates an unwarranted stigma, thereby adversely affecting the dignity and standing of the legal profession. This Court is of the considered view that such high-handed action, bereft of due consideration and application of mind, cannot be sustained. At the very least, the Investigating Officer ought to have examined the contents of the complaint in its entirety and satisfied himself about the existence of a prima facie nexus before resorting to such an extreme measure. 11. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case eminently warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, has been compelled to approach this Court complaining of arbitrary and high-handed action on the part of respondent No.1 in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18546 WP No. 16072 of 2025 directing debit-freezing/marking of lien over his bank account. The records would further indicate that the petitioner had, in fact, approached respondent No.1 and duly explained that the amount received by him was purely towards professional fees and had no connection whatsoever with any alleged criminal activity. Despite such clarification, respondent No.1 has failed to take corrective steps. The petitioner, therefore, has established a clear legal right to seek appropriate relief, and correspondingly, respondent No.1 is under a bounden duty to rectify the illegality by issuing necessary communication to the bank for withdrawal of the lien. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondent No.1 is directed to forthwith issue a fresh communication to the Karnataka Bank withdrawing the lien marked - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18546 WP No. 16072 of 2025 over a sum of ₹50,000/- in the petitioner’s bank account. (iii) On receipt of such communication, the concerned officials of the Karnataka Bank shall immediately take steps to remove the lien and restore full operation of the petitioner’s account. (iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by respondent No.1 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (v) The bank shall, in turn, act upon such communication and remove the lien within one week thereafter. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3