MP High Court Slams 'Poor Functioning' Of Cyber Crime Cells, Orders De-Freezing Of Bank Account

The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed a company's plea seeking unfreezing of its bank account, which had been blocked based on directions issued by various cybercrime cells in connection with suspected cybercrime fraud. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 227]

The bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar noted "poor functioning and irresponsible approach" of the cybercrime cells units who were sent an email by the Bank per the court's interim order to seek clarification regarding freezing of the accounts. The court noted that while the Bengaluru cell responded, other cells failed to respond to the Bank's emails. 

The bench observed:

"In compliance of the aforesaid order, State Bank of India has already sent emails to the concerned cyber crime cell of various police stations but except the cyber crime cell of Banglore, Karnataka/respondent No.4 in connected petition W.P. No.1185/2024, no other police station has taken trouble to respond to the emails sent to them, which also demonstrates the poor functioning and irresponsible approach of the said cyber crime cells of various States as on one hand they had sent emails to the various banks to freeze certain accounts, and on the other hand they are not willing to respond to the emails sent to them" 

A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions for unfreezing the petitioner company's bank account and removal of the lien imposed by the Bank. 

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the freezing of its accounts was arbitrary and was based solely on the information received by the cybercrime cells of various police stations without prior notice or a proper opportunity of hearing. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the amount linked to the cyber fraud could be kept in a separate fixed deposit until the petitioner is given a clean chit, and that until then, the company may be allowed to access the rest of the funds. 

The counsel for the Bank argued that the Bank had frozen the bank account upon instructions from various cybercrime cells and was bound by said instructions. 

The court noted that it had passed an interim order on March 14, 2026, directing the Bank to send emails to the concerned cybercrime cells. But the court noted that, except for the cyber crime cell of Bangalore, no other police station has responded to the emails. 

Considering these circumstances, the court deemed it appropriate to direct the Bank to keep the disputed amount in fixed deposits. The court further directed;

"this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents/Bank to keep the disputed amount as informed to them by various cyber crime agencies, in fixed deposits, which shall be allowed to be liquidated only after the orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months' time as it is expected from the cyber crime police to proceed in accordance with law under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., or any other law on which they are relying upon, failing which the amount so kept in FDs may also be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioners under intimation to the cyber crime agencies"

Accordingly, the court disposed of the petition with directions that the Bank shall keep the disputed amount as identified by cyber crime cells in a fixed deposit, which shall be dealt with in accordance with the orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within 3 months. If such orders are nt passed, the amount may be released to the petitioner under intimation of concerned cyber crime authorities. The court further directed that petitioner's banl account shall be unfrozen. 

Case Title: Dekain Perfect Tech Solutions v IDFC First Bank, WP-18579-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 227

For Petitioner: Advocate Harshwardhan Sharma 

For State: Advocate Tejas Vyas

Click here to read/download the Order