- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
UNION OF INDIA v. KARTIK YOGESHWAR CHATUR
Factual and Procedural Background
The Union of India filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal), Diary No. 72660/2025, challenging the Bombay High Court’s judgment dated 20 November 2025 in CRLWP No. 321/2025. The Supreme Court heard the matter on 13 March 2026. [1][2][3][4]
The High Court had allowed the respondents’ writ petition and quashed the debit freezing of their accounts, relying on Headstar Global Pvt. Limited Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. The Supreme Court condoned the delay before considering further procedural and interim directions. [5][6][7][8]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the challenge to the High Court’s order quashing the account freezing warranted notice and interim suspension of that order, in light of the Supreme Court’s directions concerning bank accounts linked to digital arrest or other cybercrimes. [6][9][10][11][12]
- Whether the petition should be heard with Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/2025, in which conflicting High Court views on account freezing had been recorded. [13][14][15][16]
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The Additional Solicitor General relied on paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Supreme Court’s order in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/2025, which addressed conflicting High Court decisions and permitted freezing accounts containing amounts prima facie traceable to reported digital arrest or other cybercrimes. [9][13][14][15][10]
- He submitted that the petition was filed both on merits and in compliance with the Supreme Court’s observations directing the filing of special leave petitions. The order does not detail the merits submissions. [17]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Headstar Global Pvt. Limited Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (Crl. MC No.3740/2025 decided on 02.06.2025) | The precise legal rule is not reproduced. | The Supreme Court recorded that the High Court relied on this judgment to quash the debit freezing; it did not independently analyse that precedent. [6][7][8] |
| Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/2025 | Expedited challenges to conflicting High Court decisions; interim authority to freeze accounts containing amounts prima facie traceable to reported digital arrest or other cybercrimes, with or without an FIR. | The relevant directions were reproduced following the petitioner’s reliance on them. The Court directed tagging of this petition with that proceeding, subject to appropriate orders from the Chief Justice of India. [9][13][14][15][10][16] |
| Rasmi K.R. v. NCCRP & Ors. | A Kerala High Court decision identified in the quoted order as part of conflicting views on freezing accounts involved in digital arrest scams. | Mentioned within the reproduced suo motu order; its individual reasoning and holding were not examined. [13][14] |
| Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur Vs. Union of India & Ors. | A Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court decision, identified in the quoted order as Criminal W.P. 328/2025, forming part of the conflicting views. | Mentioned within the reproduced direction seeking special leave petitions against both conflicting decisions. Its reasoning was not separately analysed. [14][15] |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first identified the basis of the impugned decision: the High Court had relied on Headstar Global to quash the debit freezing. It then reproduced the earlier Supreme Court directions invoked by the petitioner. [6][7][8][9]
Those directions recorded conflicting High Court views and sought prompt filing and listing of special leave petitions. They also permitted the CBI and State police to freeze accounts where amounts were prima facie traceable to digital arrest or other cybercrimes already reported to the specified authorities or portal, whether or not an FIR existed. [13][14][15][10]
After recording the petitioner’s submission that this challenge also complied with those directions, the Court issued notice, ordered tagging subject to the Chief Justice’s appropriate orders, and stayed the impugned order. It supplied no separate merits analysis or finding that the particular accounts satisfied the quoted freezing conditions. [17][11][16][12]
Holding and Implications
Delay was condoned, notice was issued, and the operation and effect of the impugned High Court order were stayed pending further proceedings. The petition was directed to be tagged with Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/2025 after obtaining appropriate orders from the Chief Justice of India. [5][11][16][12]
The direct effect is interim suspension of the High Court’s order quashing the debit freezing. The petition was not finally decided, and the order states no new substantive precedent. [6][11][16][12]
1
ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.16 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 72660/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-11-2025 in CRLWP No. 321/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay]
UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KARTIK YOGESHWAR CHATUR & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 65640/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No. 65641/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND IA No. 65644/2026 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 13-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. S.D.Sanjay, A.S.G.
Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Divyam Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. The High Court has allowed the respondent(s) Writ Petition and has quashed the debit freezing of the accounts of Writ Petitioner(s) relying on the judgment rendered in the case of Headstar Global Pvt. Limited Vs. State
2
of Kerala & Ors. (Crl. MC No.3740/2025 decided on
02.06.2025.
3. Learned ASG appearing for the petitioner would then refer to paragraph nos.-12 and 13 of the order passed by this Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/2025 wherein the following has been observed/ directed;
XXXX XXXX XXXX
"12. It has also been brought to our notice that insofar as the issue of freezing of bank accounts involved in the digital arrest scams is concerned, there are conflicting views of the Kerala High Court in W.P. (C). No. 38383/2025 titled
"Rasmi K.R. v. NCCRP & Ors." and Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in Criminal W.P. 328/2025 titled
"Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur Vs. Union of India & Ors". We have impressed upon the learned Solicitor General of India to see that the Special Leave Petitions are filed in both cases as early as possible, but not later than two weeks. In this regard, necessary assistance may be provided by the learned Amicus Curiae. The Registry is directed that as soon as such SLPs are filed, subject to curing of defects, the same be ordered to be listed before this Court without any delay.
13. In the meantime, we direct
3
that wherever any amount lying in a bank account is prima facie traceable to digital arrest or other cybercrimes, as already reported to the State police, the CBI or NCRP portal, the CBI and the State police authorities, with or without FIR, are at liberty to freeze such accounts."
XXXX XXXX XXXX
4. Learned ASG would thus submit that the instant petition has been preferred not only on merits but also in compliance of the observations made by this Court as extracted above.
5. Issue notice.
6. Tag with Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/2025 after taking appropriate orders from the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
7. In the meanwhile, operation and effect of the impugned order shall remain stayed.
(NISHA KHULBEY) (CHETNA BALOONI)
COURT MASTER(SH) COURT MASTER(NSH)
Alert