- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19882 WP No. 26032 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.26032 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR.KARTHIK UDAPI S/O NAGESH UDUPI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT 1ST FLOOR, ASHRAYA J.B.LOBO ROAD, 1ST CROSS KOTTARA, MANGALURU TALUK D K - 575 006 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANK MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA K.S.RAO ROAD BRANCH MANGALORE, D K - 575 001 2. THE BANK MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL SPINE BRANCH JAIPUR RAJASTHAN - 302 019 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY S.H.O URVA POLICE STATION MANGALURU CITY Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19882 WP No. 26032 of 2024 MANGALORE D.K. - 575 006 REPRESENTED BY SATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 01 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.BRIJESH CHANDER GURU, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.ADITYA DIWAKAR, AGA FOR R.3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO THE R-1 AND 2 TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE ACCOUNT NO.42366031032 BELONGED TO SHRI.KRISHNA ENTERPRISES HELD IN R-2 BRANCH REGARDING TRANSACTION FROM 01.02.2024 TO TILL DATE FOR KIND PERUSAL OF THIS HONBLE COURT 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 In the captioned petition, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs. "i) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide details of the Account No.42366031032 belonged to Shri.Krishna Enterprises held in respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19882 WP No. 26032 of 2024 No.2 Branch regarding transaction from 01.02.2024 to till date for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. ii) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the Respondent No.1 and 2 to reverse/re-transfer of the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) of petitioner to the account of petitioner held in Respondent No.1 Branch from the account of Shri. Krishna Enterprises held in the Respondent No.2 - Branch in compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble Court of J.M.F.C-III, Mangaluru, D.K., iii) Grant such other and further relief deems fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 – Banks. Perused the pleadings and material on record. 3. The petitioner, who is stated to be working as an Officer in Karnataka Bank, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not complying with the directions issued by the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate in Crime No.16/2024. The factual matrix, as borne out from the pleadings, would indicate that the petitioner, having come across an online - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19882 WP No. 26032 of 2024 advertisement styled as “Stock Trading Devil”, was induced to join a WhatsApp group under the name “Equity Asset Management Group 605” through a link shared with him. Acting upon the representations made in the said group and believing the same to be genuine, the petitioner transferred a sum of ₹8,00,000/- on 01.02.2024 from his SBI Account bearing No.39171733954 maintained with respondent No.1 – Bank to an account bearing No.42366031032 standing in the name of “Shri Krishna Enterprises” maintained with respondent No.2 – Bank. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that immediately after effecting the transfer, he was informed by the concerned user that the beneficiary account was under hold, which raised suspicion. Realising that he had fallen prey to a fraudulent scheme, the petitioner promptly approached the respondent-Bank and submitted a representation seeking reversal of the said transaction. Simultaneously, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police on 16.02.2024, which culminated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19882 WP No. 26032 of 2024 in registration of FIR in Crime No.16/2024 for the offences alleged. 5. The gist of the petitioner’s grievance is that despite the learned Magistrate having issued specific directions to respondent Nos.1 and 2 – Banks to reverse the transaction and re-credit the amount of ₹8,00,000/- to the petitioner’s account, and despite due intimation having been furnished to the Banks as evidenced by Annexure-‘J’, the respondent-Banks have failed to act upon the said judicial direction. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Per-contra, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have entered appearance and filed their statement of objections resisting the petition. Having heard the rival submissions, the short point that arises for consideration is: “Whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 – Banks are justified in withholding compliance of the direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate on the ground that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19882 WP No. 26032 of 2024 there are multiple claims over the subject account maintained in the name of ‘Shri Krishna Enterprises’?” 7. On a careful consideration of the rival pleadings, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of paragraph No.6 of the statement of objections filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 would, in fact, clinch the controversy in issue. In the said paragraph, the respondent-Banks have unequivocally admitted that a sum of ₹8,00,000/- was transferred from the petitioner’s account on 01.02.2024 to the account maintained in the name of “Shri Krishna Enterprises”. This categorical admission, in the considered view of this Court, establishes the foundational fact regarding the transaction and leaves little room for dispute on that aspect. 8. In order to appreciate the said admission in its proper perspective, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraph No.6 of the statement of objections, which reads as under: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19882 WP No. 26032 of 2024 "6. Later, the Bank received multiple emails from Surveillance department of LHO Bangalore and the Jaipur central spine 31861 branch also, for removal of the said hold to comply the orders passed by the Court at Bangalore and at Vadodara Court. The Bank had marked the hold for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- on 05.02.2024 for the specific transaction done at the KSR Branch by the customer/petitioner Mr. Kartik Udapi to Sri.Krishna enterprises on 01.02.2024. (The balance in the beneficiary account was Rs.70,311.88 before the Txn of Rs.8,00,000/- and the balance became Rs.8,70,311.88/- after the transaction. The current balance in the account is Rs.8,70,050.65/- (Available balance is 0.00). Mr.Kartik Udapi has filed FIR vide 0016/2024 on 16.02.2024 for the same under Section 417, 420 of the IPC and accordingly, police station Urwa Mangalore instructed the respondent No.1 - Bank to mark freeze in the account and the hold was retrained in the account. The copy of the Police Complaint dated 16.02.2024, lodged by the Petitioner with the Urwa Police Station - Mangalore is herewith produced as Annexure-R.2. The copy of letter dated 16.04.2024, submitted by the petitioner to the Bank requesting not to remove hold as per order of the Court in Crime No.16/2024 is herewith produced as Annexure - R.3. The copy of Intimation dated 16.04.2024, received by the Bank from the Court of the JMFC - Mangalore D.K - in Crime No.16/2024 is herewith produced as Annexure-R.4." (Emphasis supplied) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19882 WP No. 26032 of 2024 9. A careful and meaningful reading of the extracted portion of paragraph No.6 of the statement of objections would unmistakably demonstrate that respondent Nos.1 and 2 – Banks have, in unequivocal terms, admitted the core and foundational fact that a sum of ₹8,00,000/- was transferred from the petitioner’s account on 01.02.2024 to the account maintained in the name of “Shri Krishna Enterprises”. The said paragraph not only acknowledges the transaction but also furnishes the pre-transaction and post-transaction balances, thereby lending complete authenticity to the petitioner’s assertion regarding the source and trail of funds. It is further borne out from the said extract that the Bank had, in fact, marked a specific hold of ₹8,00,000/- in respect of the said transaction and that such hold was continued pursuant to instructions issued by the jurisdictional police in connection with Crime No.16/2024. 10. What is of considerable significance is that, despite the existence of a judicial direction issued by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19882 WP No. 26032 of 2024 learned Jurisdictional Magistrate to reverse and re-credit the said amount to the petitioner’s account, the respondent-Banks have chosen to withhold compliance on the purported ground that there are multiple claims in respect of the beneficiary account. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a stand is wholly untenable. Once the respondent-Banks themselves admit the provenance of the disputed sum and the identifiable nexus between the petitioner’s account and the amount lying in the beneficiary account, the plea of “multiple claims” pales into insignificance, at least insofar as the petitioner’s specifically traceable amount is concerned. The obligation cast upon the Banks pursuant to a judicial order cannot be diluted or deferred on speculative or administrative grounds when the transaction in question stands admitted and segregated. 11. It is also pertinent to note that paragraph No.5 of the statement of objections further fortifies the petitioner’s case, inasmuch as the respondent-Banks have - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19882 WP No. 26032 of 2024 acknowledged that the disputed transaction emanated from the petitioner’s account. Once such an admission is forthcoming, the respondent-Banks are left with no discretion in the matter but to act in strict compliance with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The existence of a freeze or hold, which was initially marked to safeguard the amount, cannot now be used as a shield to defeat the very purpose for which such protective action was taken, namely, to secure and restore the amount to its rightful owner. 12. This Court is of the considered view that the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not effecting reversal, despite receipt of intimation from the Court and despite clear admission of the transaction, amounts to a patent dereliction of duty and borders on non-compliance of a judicial order. The Banks, being instrumentalities dealing with public funds, are expected to act with promptitude and in aid of the administration of justice, and not in a manner that frustrates or delays the enforcement of lawful - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19882 WP No. 26032 of 2024 directions issued by a competent Court. Therefore, this Court finds that the present case squarely warrants issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent- Banks to forthwith reverse the transaction and re-credit the amount to the petitioner. 13. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the findings recorded supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 – Banks to forthwith reverse the transaction and re-credit a sum of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the petitioner’s account, the said amount being admittedly traceable to the petitioner and presently lying under hold in the account of “Shri Krishna Enterprises”. (iii) The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out expeditiously and in any event within - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19882 WP No. 26032 of 2024 an outer limit of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (iv) It is made clear that the respondent- Banks shall not defer compliance of this order on the ground of any inter se claims or internal communications, insofar as the petitioner’s identified amount of ₹8,00,000/- is concerned. (v) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43