One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.
Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.
Rohan Gupta, a salaried professional from Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, found his HDFC Bank savings account placed under a lien of approximately Rs. 54,000 in September 2023. The lien had been triggered after a cyber fraud complaint was registered at the local cyber cell, allegedly linking a transaction in his account to a reported online scam. Rohan had done nothing wrong. He had simply received money from a known contact and transferred it forward — routine for him. But that was enough for the system to flag his account.
Over the following months, Rohan visited the concerned police station at least six times, each time submitting fresh documents to explain his transactions. No written response. No acknowledgment. And certainly no NOC. Frustrated, he filed an RTI application and eventually received a reply in November 2024 confirming that a 'C Report' (closure report) had been filed by the Investigating Officer (IO). Despite this, the IO refused to issue an NOC, instead telling Rohan to either settle the amount with the complainant or approach the court. When Rohan checked the court records, no case number or PF (Police File) number appeared before any Magistrate.
At this point, Rohan had already spent over a year in uncertainty with no legal traction. A colleague referred him to Advocate Sudhir Rao. Unlike the general advice Rohan had received earlier, which focused only on repeatedly visiting the police station, the approach here was structured differently. A formal application was moved before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS seeking direction to release the lien, backed by documentary evidence of the C Report, bank statements, and RTI reply. The matter was addressed within a few months, and the lien on the account was eventually lifted.
Advice in Such Cases
Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation to come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think.
Repeatedly visiting the police station without a legal framework rarely helps. Verbal requests don't create a record. Every submission you make must be in writing, with an acknowledgment stamp or receipt — start building that paper trail immediately, if you haven't already.
File an RTI if you haven't done so. Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, you're entitled to know the current status of the complaint, whether a chargesheet or closure report has been filed, and what action the IO has taken on your documents. Frankly, the RTI reply alone can become your strongest document before the Magistrate.
This category of matter sits at the intersection of cyber law, criminal procedure, and banking regulation. A general practitioner may not be familiar with the specific procedural steps for getting a lien released under BNSS provisions or for approaching the Magistrate when the IO stalls. Engaging an advocate who regularly handles cyber fraud and account freeze matters can make a significant practical difference. And here's the thing — the difference between six months of confusion and a resolution in sixty days often comes down to whether someone filed the right application in the right court.
Applicable Sections of Law
- Section 173(4) BNSS: Empowers the Superintendent of Police to direct registration of an FIR or take action where the concerned officer fails to act. Relevant when the IO is non-responsive.
- Section 175(3) BNSS: Allows an aggrieved person to file a complaint directly before the Magistrate when police refuse or fail to act, including situations where lien removal is stonewalled.
- Section 105 BNSS (read with Section 106 BNSS): Relates to attachment and freezing of property during investigation — and importantly, the obligation to release such attachment once investigation concludes or a closure report is filed.
- Section 318(4) BNS: Addresses cheating by personation and digital means — the provision frequently invoked in cyber fraud complaints that trigger account liens.
Punishment and Penalties
Where the cyber fraud allegation involves cheating under Section 318 BNS, the punishment can extend to imprisonment of up to seven years along with a fine. If the accused used digital impersonation, the offence under Section 319 BNS (cheating by personation) carries imprisonment up to five years and a fine.
These are cognizable and non-bailable offences. They're not compoundable as a general rule, meaning police can't close them simply on the basis of a private settlement between parties. This is precisely why the IO's suggestion to "settle with the victim" is legally incomplete advice without court sanction. Make no mistake — an IO who tells you to "just settle" is not giving you legal guidance. That's deflection.
Jurisdiction — Where to File the Case
Territorial jurisdiction for a cyber fraud-related account lien matter lies with the police station and Magistrate's court in the area where the original complaint was filed, or where the offence was reported to have occurred. If the matter involves directing the IO to release the lien or act on the closure report, an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) or Executive Magistrate in the relevant district is appropriate.
If the bank is unresponsive despite a court order or police communication, the Banking Ombudsman under the Reserve Bank of India framework also holds jurisdiction for grievances against the bank's conduct. Getting the jurisdiction right from the first step matters. Filing in the wrong forum wastes time and weakens your position — two things you can't afford when your account is frozen.
What if Police Refuse to File FIR?
In cases where the IO ignores written requests or refuses to issue an NOC despite a C Report being filed, the law provides clear escalation paths.
- Submit a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS, attaching all previous correspondence, the RTI reply, and documentary proof of the lien.
- File a private complaint before the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS seeking judicial direction to the IO to act on the closure report and release the attachment.
- If the Magistrate also fails to act, a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available as a last resort.
- Document every step — keep copies of all submissions, RTI replies, acknowledgment receipts, and bank statements showing the continued lien.
Rights of the Accused
If you're named in a cyber complaint and your account is frozen, you have legal rights that can't be bypassed.
- Right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution — you cannot be compelled to produce evidence against yourself.
- Right to legal representation under Article 22(1) — you are entitled to consult an advocate of your choice at any stage.
- Right to a copy of the FIR and to know the specific grounds on which your account was frozen.
- Right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest under Article 22(2) and Section 58 BNSS, should you ever be detained.
- Right to challenge attachment under Section 106 BNSS if the attachment was not accompanied by a proper judicial order or was not reviewed after investigation concluded.
Bail Provisions
Cyber fraud offences under Section 318 BNS are non-bailable. If an arrest is made, regular bail is available under Section 480 BNSS before the Magistrate, or under Section 483 BNSS if the matter is pending before the Sessions Court.
Where there's a reasonable apprehension of arrest, anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS may be applied for before the Sessions Court. Typical bail conditions include surrender of passport, appearance on all hearing dates, and not tampering with witnesses. Now, before you wait for a notice to arrive — applying for anticipatory bail proactively, before any arrest warrant is issued, is almost always the better strategy.
Quashing of FIR / Case
Where the IO has already filed a C Report (closure report) but has failed to release the lien or communicate the closure to the bank, one viable legal route is a petition before the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers), seeking quashing of any pending proceedings and a direction to release the attachment.
Grounds for quashing may include: no prima facie offence established against the account holder, the IO's own closure report confirming no case, abuse of process by leaving the lien operative despite closure, and disproportionate prejudice to the innocent account holder. In cases like State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992, the Supreme Court laid down categories where quashing is appropriate, including where "the allegation in the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence." That principle continues to apply under the BNSS framework.
If You Are the Victim
Now, before you call your advocate, get your own facts in order. If you are an innocent account holder whose funds are trapped due to someone else's fraud complaint, here is what to do immediately.
- File a written complaint at the cyber cell attaching complete bank statements, transaction receipts, and any communication with the person you transacted with — establish the legitimate source of funds.
- File an RTI application to obtain the current status of the complaint, the IO's action taken report, and whether a chargesheet or C Report has been submitted.
- Send a formal written request to the bank's nodal officer citing the account number, lien amount, and requesting a written explanation of the freeze order, including the specific police order number they are acting upon.
- Compile and preserve all digital records — UPI screenshots, bank confirmation SMSs, email trails — as these are primary evidence of your bona fide transactions.
- Engage an advocate to draft and file a formal petition before the Magistrate if the IO does not act within a reasonable period after a C Report is filed.
Documents You Must Keep Ready
- Aadhaar card and PAN card (identity proof)
- Complete bank account statements covering the period of the disputed transaction
- UPI transaction history, IMPS/NEFT receipts, or any digital payment proof
- Written acknowledgment slips from the police station for all documents submitted
- RTI application and the official reply received from the police or cyber cell
- Copy of the C Report (closure report) if obtained through RTI or otherwise
- Any written communication from the bank explaining or confirming the lien
- Communication records (WhatsApp messages, emails) with the person you transacted with, showing the legitimate nature of the transaction
What Evidence Is Required?
- Bank transaction records (primary evidence): Official bank statements and IMPS/UPI receipts establishing the chain of the transaction — where the money came from and where it went.
- Digital communication records: WhatsApp messages, emails, or SMS confirming the purpose and parties of the transaction. These are admissible under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 as electronic evidence.
- RTI reply: Confirms the current status of the police complaint and the filing of the C Report — a powerful document to place before the Magistrate.
- Police acknowledgment receipts: Proof that you cooperated and submitted documents as requested by the IO.
- KYC and account opening documents: Establish your identity, address, and the legitimacy of the account itself.
- Expert or forensic report (if available): In complex cyber cases, a digital forensics report confirming the absence of fraudulent intent can be persuasive secondary evidence.
How the Police Behave in Such Cases
Cyber cell investigations in India are stretched thin. Officers frequently place a lien on an account the moment a fraud complaint names it, even without verifying the account holder's culpability. Once placed, releasing the lien gets deprioritised. IOs often cite "ongoing investigation" indefinitely, even after filing a C Report internally. Requests for an NOC are deflected with suggestions to "settle," which has no legal backing once a closure report is filed. Documentation submitted by the account holder is rarely acknowledged in writing. And here's what I've seen repeatedly in practice — this systemic inertia isn't necessarily malicious, but it causes real financial harm and requires a structured legal response to break through.
Timeline of Legal Process
- Step 1 — Written complaint with documents to IO (Week 1-2): Submit everything in writing with an acknowledgment. If already done, ensure you have proof.
- Step 2 — RTI application to cyber cell / police station (Week 2-4): Obtain confirmation of C Report and current status of investigation.
- Step 3 — Complaint to SP under Section 173(4) BNSS (Week 4-6): Formal escalation if IO remains non-responsive after C Report.
- Step 4 — Application before CJM / Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS (Week 6-10): Seeking judicial direction to release the lien and act on the closure report.
- Step 5 — Court hearing and arguments (Month 3-5): Magistrate may call for a report from the IO; this typically takes 2-3 hearings.
- Step 6 — Order for lien release / NOC (Month 4-6): Magistrate can direct the IO to issue NOC and communicate to the bank.
Advocate Sudhir Rao
Facing a similar matter? Speak to a Delhi criminal defence lawyer — Advocate Sudhir Rao appears in bail, trial and appellate matters before the Delhi District Courts, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India.