Kerala High Court
Fasla Rahman K vs Idfc First Bank Limited on 8 April, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 3342 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:30694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 3342 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
FASLA RAHMAN K
AGED 30 YEARS
D/O ABDU RAHMAN K,KARAYIL HOUSE, NEDUKADAMB VAYAL,
RAHMAN BAZAR, KOLATHARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673655
BY ADVS.
VISWANATH SALISH
SANDRA PAUL
NIDHA SHERIN
ZAKIYA ISMAIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER MINDSPACE
BUILDING NO 2, OFF SION-PANVEL ROAD,OPP TO DY PATIL
STADIUM,, JUINAGAR, NAVI MUMBAI, THANE, PIN -
400706
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CYBER POLICE STATION KASHMIR ZONE, SRINAGAR, 3RD
FLOOR PS SHERGARHI COMPLEX SRINAGAR, PIN - 185233
SRI P SATHEESAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3342 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:30694
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the 1st respondent
bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's UTR number
FDRLR 52024091433339224, which is linked to the
petitioner's SB account bearing No. 99980113793207.
2. The petitioner's case is that, she is the holder of
the above accounts with the 1st respondent bank. The said
accounts have been debit freezed by the 1st respondent
pursuant to the requisition received from the 2nd
respondent. The action of the 1st respondent is arbitrary.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that as per Ext.P4 letter, the disputed amount is Rs.1,064/-
The said submission is recorded.
5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in
2025:KER:30694
Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826]
held as follows:
" a. The respondent Banks arrayed in these cases, are
directed to confine the order of freeze against the
accounts of the respective petitioners, only to the
extent of the amounts mentioned in the
order/requisition issued to them by the Police
Authorities. This shall be done forthwith, so as to
enable the petitioners to deal with their accounts, and
transact therein, beyond that limit.
b. The respondent - Police Authorities concerned are
hereby directed to inform the respective Banks as to
whether freezing of accounts of the petitioners in these
Writ Petitions will require to be continued even in the
afore manner; and if so, for what further time, within a
period of eight months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
c. On the Banks receiving the afore
information/intimation from the Police Authorities, they
will adhere with it and complete necessary action -
either continuing the freeze for such period as
mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may
be.
d. If, however, no information or intimation is received
by their Banks in terms of directions (b) above, the
petitioners or such among them, will be at full liberty
to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all
their contentions in these Writ Petitions are left open
2025:KER:30694
and reserved to them, to impel in future."
6. Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v.
Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768],
after concurring with the view in Dr.Sajeer's case (supra)
and taking into consideration Section 102 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and the interpretation
of Section 102 of the Code laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D
Neogy [(1999) 7 SCC 685], Teesta Atul Setalvad v.
State of Gujarat [(2018) 2 SCC 372] and Shento
Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others [2024 SCC
OnLine SC 895], has held thus:
"8. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that,
while delay in forthwith reporting the seizure to the
Magistrate may only be an irregularity, total failure to report
the seizure will definitely have a negative impact on the
validity of the seizure. In such circumstances, account
holders like the petitioner, most of whom are not even made
accused in the crimes registered, cannot be made to wait
indefinitely hoping that the police may act in tune with
2025:KER:30694
S.102 and report the seizure as mandated under Sub-section
(3) at some point of time. In that view of the matter, the
following direction is issued, in addition to the directions in
Dr.Sajeer (supra).
(i) The Police officer concerned shall inform the banks
whether the seizure of the bank account has been reported
to the jurisdictional Magistrate and if not, the time limit
within which the seizure will be reported. If no intimation
as to the compliance or the proposal to comply with the
S.102 is informed to bank within one month ofreceipt of a
copy of the judgment, the bank shall lift the debit freeze
imposed on the petitioner's account.
(ii) In order to enable the police to comply with the
above direction, the bank as well as the petitioner shall
forthwith serve a copy of this judgment to the officer
concerned and retain proof of such service.
7. I am in complete agreement with the views
in Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T cases (supra). The above
principles squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand.
In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ
petition by passing the following directions:
(i). The 1st respondent Bank is directed to
confine the freezing order of the petitioner's
bank account only to the extent of the amount
mentioned in the order/requisition issued by the
2025:KER:30694
Police Authorities. The above exercise shall be
done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioner to
transact through her account beyond the said
limit;
(ii). The Police Authorities are hereby
directed to inform the Bank as to whether
freezing of the petitioner's account will be
required to be continued even in the afore
manner; and if so, for what further time;
(iii) On the Bank receiving the afore
information/intimation from the Police
Authorities, they will adhere with it and
complete necessary action - either continuing
the freeze for such period as mentioned
therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may be;
(iv). If, however, no information or intimation is
received by the Bank in terms of direction (ii)
above, the petitioner will be at full liberty to
approach this Court again; for which purpose,
all her contentions in this Writ Petition are left
open and reserved to her, to impel in future;
2025:KER:30694
(v) The jurisdictional police officers shall
inform the Bank whether the seizure of the bank
account has been reported to the jurisdictional
Magistrate and if not, the time limit within
which the seizure will be reported. If no
intimation as to the compliance or the proposal
to comply with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. is
received by the Bank within two months of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Bank shall
lift the debit freeze or remove the lien, as the
case may be, on the petitioner's bank account;
(vi) In order to enable the Police to comply
with the above direction, the Bank, as well as
the petitioner, shall forthwith serve a copy of
this judgment to the jurisdictional officer and
retain proof of such service.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
lsn
2025:KER:30694
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3342/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY EMAIL ISSUED
BY 1ST RESPONDENT BANK DATED 15.10.2024
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL ISSUED BY
FEDERAL BANK TO THE PETITIONER DATED
11.11.2024
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT BANK DATED 09.12.2024
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING
TO DETAILS OF MHA COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
REMITX FOREIGN EXCHANGE COMPANY TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 25.09.2023
