Raj D. Wakode, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. Since the challenge involved in all these writ petitions pertains to the orders of debit freezing/holding on lien the accounts of the petitioners, and considering the order that we propose to pass in all these writ petitions, we dispose of all these writ petitions by a common judgment.

3. In all these petitions, the accounts of the petitioners are either debit frozen or marked as lien by the respective banks. The reason for all such actions of debit freezing/lien is the alleged cyber fraud, as a result of which a part of the amount of the alleged fraud has been credited to the accounts of the respective petitioners. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking challenge to the aforesaid communications, either written or oral, thereby debit freezing or marking lien in the accounts of the petitioners. The petitioners relied upon the judgment dated 20th November, 2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.321 of 2025 and other connected writ petitions, wherein this Court had allowed the writ petitions and quashed and set aside the order debit freezing the accounts in the aforesaid lead petition and connected writ petitions, relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and others, rendered by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal M.C. No.3740 of 2025, decided on 2nd June, 2025. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s).72660 of 2025 filed by the Union of India challenging the aforesaid judgment dated 20th November, 2025, passed by this Court in the case of Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur, stayed the effect and operation of the aforesaid judgment dated 20th November, 2025 passed by this Court, vide its order dated 13th March, 2026. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India thereby upheld the statutory powers of the investigating agencies in combating cyber crime.

4. It is true that in our Country, a swarm of cyber frauds are being reported frequently and, in most cases, such cyber frauds are committed from remote locations. In order to prevent dissipation of the proceeds of crime, the investigating officers are required to exercise their statutory powers. However, such powers need to be exercised in a manner which is transparent, proportionate, traceable and consistent with the procedure established by law. At the same time, it needs to be ensured that an innocent account holder ought not to be subjected indefinitely to a complete deprivation of access to his legitimate funds merely because a disputed transaction of a specified amount has passed through his account. The concerned authorities and the banking institutions are, therefore, expected to strike a proper balance between the imperatives of effective investigation of cyber financial offences and the legitimate right of an account holder to access and operate his undisputed funds. A citizen whose bank account has been subjected to a debit freeze may not necessarily have access to the investigating agency situated in another State/location or to the particulars of the case pursuant to which the restraint has been imposed.

5. In view of the above, there was an impending need to provide an accessible and time-bound institutional channel through which an aggrieved account holder may seek verification/reconsideration and, where warranted, release of the account or restoration of digital banking facilities, while protecting the account actually under investigation.

6. In view of the aforesaid backdrop, Shri. Kartik N. Shukul, learned D.S.G.I., pointed out the Standard Operating Procedure promulgated by the Indian Cyber Crime Co-ordination Centre with the assent of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 2nd January, 2026. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid SOP provides for a detailed grievance redressal mechanism which will take care of grievances related to the action of putting an account on hold or seizure of an account in a time-bound manner by the agencies issuing such directions. The mechanism contemplated under the aforesaid SOP issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs provides an important institutional framework for achieving the balance stated above, and thus, its effective implementation assumes significance in public interest. The aforesaid SOP specifically contemplates a structured mechanism whereby an affected account holder may approach the concerned bank, branch or designated office. The bank is required to undertake Customer Due Diligence (CDD) and Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD), and where the bank is satisfied regarding the bona fides of the account holder and the transaction, the grievance is required to be submitted through the Grievance Redressal Module of NCRP-CFCFRMS within a stipulated period. The mechanism, thereafter, provides for consideration of the grievance by the concerned investigating officer/police officer and, where necessary, review and appeal before the District and State Grievance Officers. Section 3 of the aforesaid SOP deals with the grievance redressal mechanism. Clause 5(vii) provides that account holders affected by the action of put-on hold, suspension of digital banking services, and seizure of a bank account or any property may raise a grievance through their respective banks or FIs, and such grievances shall be addressed within the prescribed timeframe, as elaborated in paragraph 10. Para 10 of the aforesaid SOP provides a grievance redressal mechanism in cases arising out of three situations, namely;

Clause 10.1 – dealing with cases of grievances related to the amount put on hold effected by NCRP-CFCFRMS;

Clause 10.2 – In cases of grievances related to suspension of digital banking services or seizure of an accounts or any other property on the basis of information available on NCRP-CFCFRMS; and Clause 10.3 – In cases where the Victim Bank Account is subjected to suspension of Digital Banking Services or seizure.

7. As stated above, Clause 10.2 provides a detailed grievance redressal mechanism in cases of grievances related to suspension of digital banking services or seizure of accounts on the basis of information available on NCRP-CFCFRMS, which reads thus:

                    “10.2 In cases of grievances related to suspension of digital banking services or seizure of accounts or any other property on the basis of information available on NCRP-CFCFRMS, the following process will be followed:

                    a) Directions for seizure of bank accounts or suspension of digital banking services shall be given under Section 106 BNSS or any other extant laws.

                    b) A person affected by such an action will approach the bank branch where her account is held or any other designated branch or office. The bank will undertake CDD as prescribed in relevant RBI circulars/ Master Directions, updated from time to time and the justifications submitted by the person, exercise Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) and if convinced about the bonafides of the credentials and the transactions, submit the grievance to the Grievance Redressal Module of NCRP-CFCFRMS with the necessary information including explanations submitted by the aggrieved person. Banks and Fls would be expected to submit such a grievance at the earliest and not beyond 07 calendar days from the day the account holder or aggrieved person complains.

                    c) The grievance will be assigned to the IO or Police Officer issuing directions for suspension of digital banking services or seizure, and also notified to the concerned State and District Grievance Officers. If there are multiple directions mandating suspension of digital banking services or seizure, the grievance will be assigned to each of the Officers issuing such directions along with the notification to the concerned State and District Grievance Officers.

                    d) The IO or Police Officer of the case shall verify the requests made in the grievance. For this, he may seek additional information from the aggrieved account holder. The IO or Police Officer of the case should use Video Conferencing to the extent possible to interview the aggrieved account holder. The IO or Police Officer may also take assistance from the Police Station of the area where the account holder resides for the purpose of verification. For this, the CIAR module of the Samanvaya Platform can be used. If satisfied with the verifications and the explanations submitted, he may direct the concerned bank to release the seized account or enable the digital banking facilities, keeping the reported amount on hold, as the case may be, under intimation to the district and state grievance officer, duly updating the Grievance Redressal Module, within 15 calendar days.

                    e) If the IO or Police Officer is not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the aggrieved person, she shall submit her remarks on the Grievance Redressal Module, duly recording her reasons, within 15 calendar days of receipt of the grievance on the portal, and the same will be communicated to the account holder by e-mail or SMS.

                    f) If the IO or Police Officer doesn't address the grievance within 15 calendar days, then on the completion of the 15th day, the grievance will be automatically notified to the District Grievance Officer. Further, if the account holder is not satisfied with the orders of the 10 or Police Officer, she may file the review request within 15 calendar days of receiving intimation, which will then be reviewed by the District Grievance Officer. The District Grievance Officer will pass appropriate instructions to the IO or Police Officer and update her decision on the Grievance Redressal Module within 15 calendar days of being notified. As instructed by the District Grievance Officer, the IO or Police Officer shall take appropriate action and update the portal within 2 calendar days. Banks and Fls should furnish the requested information at the earliest and not later than 2 calendar days to enable expeditious disposal of the grievance.

                    g) Any account holder aggrieved by the decision of the District Grievance Officer to continue the seizure or suspension of digital banking services may prefer an appeal against the decision to the State Grievance Officer within 15 calendar days. The State Grievance Officer or any other officer designated by the state DGP/CP shall review the details of the grievance raised, if required, may seek additional case details and assess the need for continued seizure or suspension of the digital banking services of the account. The State Grievance Officer will pass appropriate instructions to the IO or Police Officer and update her decision on the Grievance Redressal Portal within 15 calendar days of being notified. As instructed by the State Grievance Officer, the IO or Police Officer shall take appropriate action and update the portal within 2 calendar days. Banks and Fls should furnish the requested information at the earliest and not later than 2 calendar days to enable expeditious disposal of the grievance.

                    h) Any account holder or any other person on her behalf, aggrieved by the decision of any Grievance Officer, at any point of time, may approach the jurisdictional Court for restoration of digital banking services or unfreezing of the said account.”

8. The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) had filed an affidavit before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No.25999 of 2025 alongwith other cases, wherein they have made a categorical statement on oath stating that I4C had operationalized the grievance redressal mechanism for handling and redressal of grievances of persons aggrieved by the actions taken by Banks and Law Enforcement Agencies, and the Money Restoration Module for facilitating the restoration of the defrauded amounts to the victims of online frauds, and that both these modules are operational in the pilot phase. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment dated 27th March, 2026 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No.25999 of 2025, recording the aforesaid fact, read thus:

                    “5. On the previous hearing date [05.12.2025], Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan has informed this Court that he will secure instructions on the Grievance Redressal Module [GRM] being operational, and in terms of such submission, the learned DSG has placed on record email from I4C. This email reads that under:

                    "I am directed to submit that the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), Ministry of Home Affairs, has developed two online central modules, as envisaged under the MHA SOP for NCRP-CFCFRMS, namely: (i) the Grievance Redressal Module (GRM) for handling and redressal of grievances of persons aggrieved by the action taken by Banks and Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs); and (ii) the Money Restoration Module (MRM) for facilitating restoration of the defrauded amount to victims of online financial frauds. Both the portals are presently operational in the pilot phase."

                    6. The I4C has operationalized the GRM for handling redressal of grievances of persons aggrieved by the actions taken by the Banks and Law Enforcement Agencies and the Money Restoration Module [MRM] for facilitating the restoration of the defrauded amounts to victims of online frauds and that both these modules are operational in the pilot phase. This email further reads as under.

                    "2. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that these portals provide a structured and time-bound mechanism for addressing grievances, including issues relating to freezing of bank accounts. Any such grievance may be submitted through the GRM portal, which enables routing of the complaint to the concerned bank and/or LEA for appropriate action and resolution.

                    3. In view of the above, it is requested that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka may kindly be apprised of the functioning and utility of the aforesaid portals. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Court may consider passing appropriate directions for utilization of the facility provided under the said grievance redressal mechanism for redressal of grievances of petitioners in relevant matters before the Hon'ble Court.

                    4. It is also submitted that, upon availing the remedies available through the GRM portals, the outcome thereof may be placed before the Hon'ble Court for its further perusal and consideration, as deemed appropriate.

                    5. This would ensure that grievances, particularly those relating to bank account freezing or financial frauds, are first addressed through the designated institutional mechanism, thereby enabling effective and expeditious resolution prior to invoking the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court."

                    7. This Court must opine that the petitioners' grievance is about the lack of information and the redressal mechanism is addressed with 14C operationalizing both the GRM and MRM modules though it is at the pilot stage today. Therefore, it should be open to the petitioners to avail the remedy under these Modules and approach the Court if this mechanism does not address their grievance.”

9. Thus, two dedicated online central modules envisaged under the Ministry of Home Affairs Standard Operating Procedure for NCRP-CFCFRMS, namely, (i) the Grievance Redressal Module (GRM) for handling and redressal of grievances of persons aggrieved by the action taken by Banks and Law Enforcement Agencies, and (ii) Money Restoration Module (MRM) for facilitating restoration of defrauded amounts to victims of online transaction fraud, are both operational at present. On the basis of such fact, the Karnataka High Court had disposed of the aforesaid writ petitions, reserving liberty to the petitioners therein to avail of the remedy under the aforesaid SOP, without prejudice to their right to approach the Court afresh if their grievances remained unaddressed.

10. In view of the above, and as the institutional mechanism stands operationalized for redressal of the grievances raised in the present writ petitions, the learned D.S.G.I. requested this Court to relegate the present petitioners to the aforesaid grievance redressal mechanism. Shri. Kartik Shukul, learned D.S.G.I., tendered across the Bar the Government Resolution dated 23rd July, 2026 issued by the Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra, thereby bringing into force the State Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (S4C) with effect from the aforesaid date. Thus, on the lines of I4C instituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the Government of Maharashtra has also brought into force the S4C for taking care of cyber crimes and issues arising therefrom in the State of Maharashtra.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with the aforesaid issue and also the issue of digital arrest, passed an order dated 4th August, 2026 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s).3 of 2025 in the case of In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India directed the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts to bring the aforesaid grievance redressal mechanism dated 2nd January, 2026 to the notice of the High Courts and other Courts and adjudicating authorities dealing with the freezing of bank accounts in cyber fraud cases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that an aggrieved person may ordinarily be encouraged to avail of that mechanism in the first instance, though it shall not be a bar to any constitutional, statutory or other legal remedy.

12. We have considered the grievance raised by the petitioners and also the aforesaid backdrop on the basis of the judgments and orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the various other High Courts, and more specifically, the Standard Operating Procedure approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 2nd January, 2026. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioners herein shall be entitled to avail of the remedies and seek redressal of their grievances in terms of the SOP dated 2nd January, 2026, and the concerned banks shall initiate action in terms of the SOP and needful shall be done expeditiously.

13. Needless to mention that, in case the petitioners are still aggrieved after the culmination of the process as contemplated under the SOP, the petitioners shall always be at liberty to approach this Court in accordance with law.

14. In all the petitions, the accounts of the petitioners are debit frozen by their respective banks, except that they are put on lien by their respective banks in Writ Petition No.884 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.528 of 2026. In all the present writ petitions, except Writ Petition No.995 of 2025, the petitioners have filed pursis stating that they have approached their respective banks by filing representations requesting defreezing of their accounts or removal of lien on their accounts. The petitioners have also stated that, though the banks were bound to follow the SOP, they have done nothing in the matter to decide the aforesaid representations submitted by the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners herein have also sought to avail of the remedy and seek redressal of their grievances in terms of the SOP dated 2nd January, 2026, as they have already approached their respective banks praying for defreezing of their accounts.

15. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.995 of 2025 is also at liberty to avail of such remedy and file a detailed representation praying for defreezing of his account with his bank in terms of the SOP dated 2nd January, 2026.

16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dispose of the present writ petitions with a direction to the respective banks, who had debit frozen/marked lien on the accounts of the present petitioners, to initiate action in terms of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) as formulated by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) and approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 02.01.2026 for redressal of the grievances of the petitioners expeditiously. The representations made by the petitioners shall be processed and expeditiously decided by the respondent Banks within the stipulated period, as per the timelines prescribed under Clauses 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 for redressal of grievances, in accordance with the respective actions to be taken by the Banks and enforcement agencies. The decision taken upon such representations shall be communicated to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of such decision.

17. In case, the petitioners are still aggrieved after the culmination of the process as contemplated under the SOP, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court for redressal of their grievances.

18. The present writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.