- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18459 WP No. 8298 of 2026 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.8298 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI.HEMANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O KULBHUSHAN KUMAR RESIDING AT G-3/703 GANGA YAMUNA HINDON ENCLAVE SECTOR 7, SIDDARTH VIHAR VIJAY NAGAR, GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH - 201 009. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAYUR D BHANU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SHO SOUTH CEN CRIME POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU- 560 001 2. M/S ICICI BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI BANK LTD., AG1 Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18459 WP No. 8298 of 2026 PLOT NO. 3, ADITYA CITY CENTRE VAIBHAV KHAND INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH- 201012 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R.1; SRI.JAI M PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN SUIT O.S.NO.26639/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 4TH ACC AND SJ, BANGALORE (CC-21) AND QUASH ORDER DATED 13.01.2026, JUST ISSUING EMERGENT NOTICE VIDE ANNEXURE-A 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 captioned writ petition is primarily aggrieved by the impugned notice issued by respondent No.1 under Section 91 of Criminal Procedure Code and 34A(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 directing respondent No.2 - Bank to freeze all the bank accounts of the petitioner linked to the PAN bearing No.AYDPK7070K. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18459 WP No. 8298 of 2026 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, adverting to the grounds urged in the writ petition, would submit that the First Information Report in Crime No.374/2024 came to be registered on the basis of a written complaint lodged by respondent No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 read with Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. He would further submit that, upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.5021/2025. However, placing reliance on the records, he would point out that the complainant and the accused persons, including accused No.1, namely Sutariya Rajat Ramanbhai and others, have amicably resolved the dispute. In pursuance of such settlement, the competent Court permitted compounding of the offences and the matter was referred to Lok-Adalat, where the proceedings were closed as compounded, resulting in acquittal of the accused. He would draw the attention of this Court to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18459 WP No. 8298 of 2026 order sheet to demonstrate that respondent No.3– complainant has duly affixed his signature, thereby evidencing consent to the settlement. 4. In the backdrop of the aforesaid development, learned counsel would contend that the very substratum of the criminal proceedings no longer survives and, consequently, the action of respondent No.1 – Investigating Officer in directing respondent No.2 – Bank to mark a lien over the petitioner’s account is rendered unsustainable. He would alternatively contend on merits that the petitioner has not derived any benefit or received any proceeds of crime. 5. To substantiate the said contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on Annexures-N and P. By referring to Annexure-N, he would submit that the petitioner himself was a victim of an online fraudulent mobile application scam, pursuant to which he had invested a sum of ₹2,00,000/-. Referring to Annexure-P, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18459 WP No. 8298 of 2026 he would point out that the very same amount was subsequently remitted back to the petitioner’s account. Therefore, he would contend that the amount credited to the petitioner’s account does not constitute “proceeds of crime”, but is merely a refund of the petitioner’s own investment. In that view of the matter, the lien marked for a sum of ₹1,08,871/- is wholly arbitrary and without authority of law. 6. Per-contra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, would fairly submit that the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.5021/2025 have been closed pursuant to settlement before the Lok Adalat. However, he would submit that he has no instructions as to whether any other criminal proceedings arising out of the same mobile application scam are pending as on date. 7. This Court, having given its anxious consideration to the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, is of the view that the issue requires consideration - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18459 WP No. 8298 of 2026 on two aspects. Firstly, the petitioner has been able to prima facie demonstrate, on the strength of Annexures-N and P, that he was a victim of an online fraud and that the amount credited to his account is only a refund of his own investment and not proceeds of any criminal activity. Secondly, it is not in dispute that the criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to Crime No.374/2024 have been brought to a quietus by way of settlement before the Lok-Adalat, culminating in acquittal of the accused. 8. In view of the aforesaid undisputed factual position, the continuation of lien over the petitioner’s bank account cannot be sustained. Once the criminal proceedings themselves have been concluded and the petitioner is not shown to have received any tainted money, the action of respondent No.1 in directing the bank to mark lien ceases to have any legal foundation. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18459 WP No. 8298 of 2026 ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Respondent No.1 – Investigating Officer is directed to forthwith issue appropriate communication to respondent No.2 – Bank for withdrawal of the lien marked on the petitioner’s account to the extent of ₹1,08,871/-. (iii) Upon receipt of such communication, respondent No.2 – Bank shall, without any delay, remove the lien marked on the petitioner’s account in respect of the aforesaid amount. (iv) It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate action in accordance with law, if any independent proceedings are initiated or found pending against the petitioner in relation to any other transaction. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8