Kerala High Court
Ashmil Ahammed K R vs Federal Bank Ltd on 8 April, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 9892 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:30633
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. 9892 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ASHMIL AHAMMED K R
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O ANSAR K R, KIZHAKKEY RAMACHAM PARAMB HOUSE, MANGAD
PO, SIVAPURAM, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673574
BY ADV HAMDAN MANSOOR K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 FEDERAL BANK LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, NEO BANKING BRANCH, FEDERAL
TOWERS, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA -, PIN -
682031
2 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, HEAD OFFICE, MUMBAI,
MAHARASHTRA -, PIN - 400029
3 NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY - 8,
MAHIPALPUR, NEW DELHI -, PIN - 110037
4 STATE POLICE CHIEF,
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695014
5 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
EOW MAHARASHTRA, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, CENTRE -I, BULDING
18TH FLOOR, CUFFEE PARADE, MUMBAI -, PIN - 400005
6 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CYBER POLICE STATION NIGAM VIHAR, CHOTTA SHIMLA,
SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PIN - 171002
WP(C) NO. 9892 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:30633
7 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CID, EOW, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE, CID, DGP OFFICE COMPLEX, III FLOOR,
LAKDIKAPOOL, HYDERABAD-, PIN - 500004
8 ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING(EOW), OFFICE OF THE
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIME INVESTIGATION
DEPARTMENT, FIRST FLOOR,MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR URBAN
DISTRICT - ANDHRA PRADESH., PIN - 522503
9 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
STATE CYBER CRIME CELL, GUJARAT STATE, GANDHINAGAR. 7TH
FLOOR, KARMYOGI BHAVAN, SECTOR-10-A, BLOCK NO-2,
GANDHINAGAR - GUJARAT, PIN - 382018
dsgi sri dinesh gp sri b s syamanthak sc sri mohan
jacob george
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. 9892 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:30633
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the 1st respondent bank
to lift the freezing of the petitioner's bank account bearing
No.55550118835378.
2. The petitioner's case is that, he is the holder of the
above bank account with the 1st respondent bank. The said
account has been debit freezed by the 1st respondent pursuant
to the requisitions received from the Police. The action of the
1st respondent is arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned
counsel for the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted
that the petitioner's bank account is totally debit freezed.
However, no disputed amount is mentioned in the requisitions.
The said submission is recorded.
5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in
Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826] held
as follows:
2025:KER:30633
" 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 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
2025:KER:30633
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 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
2025:KER:30633
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 Police Authorities.
The above exercise shall be done forthwith, so as to
enable the petitioner to transact through his
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;
2025:KER:30633
(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
his contentions in this Writ Petition are left open
and reserved to him, to impel in future;
(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;
2025:KER:30633
(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:30633
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9892/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PASSBOOK OF THE
PETITIONER BEARING ACCOUNT NUMBER
55550118835378
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE MAIL DATED
19.08.2024 FROM THE RESPONDENT BANK
