The High Court of Madras refuses to order the refreshment of the bank account held by the cryptocurrency merchant

The high court of Madras refused to order the delivery of a bank account based in Chennai of an online merchant of cryptocurrency which ended up being bothering in multiple complaints of cyber crime filed with the police of Telangana, Karnataka, Kerala, Gujarat and New Delhi.

Judge P. Velmurugan rejected the petition filed by B. Kalyan, a software engineer now working in Bengaluru, after Lawyer Tiquanan Mohan, representing the HDFC bank, told court that the account had been frozen following the requests received from five different states.

Observing that he was not inclined to issue a case in a case involving police services outside the court of the high court of Madras, the judge said that the petitioner would however be freedom to determine his appeal in the known manner of the law.

In his affidavit, the petitioner said that he had obtained a personal loan for 35 Lakh from the HDFC bank and another 24.91 Lakh from the Banque d’Axis and bought 67,873 Crypto pieces of ₹ on the payment of 60 Lakh from a digital achievement company in 2023 and sold them on an online platform.

However, suddenly, it was shocked to find his salary account having been frozen by the HDFC bank at the request of the police of various states. Consequently, he had rushed to the court declaring that he was not involved in any reprehensible act and that the frost of his account was therefore not justifiable.

For its part, the Permanent Council of the Central Government LJ VENGATESH told the court that the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Union (MHA) had created the Indian Cybercrime Center (I4C) to provide a framework and an eco-system for the law enforcement organizations to deal with cybercrime in a coordinated and complete manner.

I4C had, in turn, created a centralized online platform named National Cybercrime Portal Reporting (NCRP) to file complaints of financial fraud and had also introduced a national assistance line of 1930 through which cybercrime complaints could be reported without having to go to a police station.

Declaring that the involvement of the I4C ends with coordination, said the lawyer, that, as the “police” was a subject of the State, it is the law enforcement organizations in the respective states which lead a preliminary survey on complaints and emit opinions to the banks to mark a privilege on the assets, if necessary.

“Neither the MHA nor the I4C have an intervention or administrative control over the marking of the privilege or the freezing of the bank accounts. The police exercise such powers available as part of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and were invited to exercise power with reasonable care and caution, “he said.