Kerala High Court
Noorudheen vs Union Of India on 3 February, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 40551 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:8429
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 14TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 40551 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
NOORUDHEEN, AGED 36 YEARS
S/O ABDU, CHODATH KUZHIYIL, MECHERIPPARAMBU,
IRIMBILIYAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679572
BY ADV GODWIN JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY - 8,
MAHABALIPUR, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
3 SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, VALANCHERY
BRANCH, 2194, W.NO: IX, MAYYERI COMPLEX, KOZHIKODE
ROAD, VALANCHERRY, MALALPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
676552
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
LIMBAYAT POLICE STATION, RUSTAM BAGH ROAD, UDHANA,
LIMBAYAT, SURAT, GUJARAT, PIN - 394210
BY ADVS.
SUNIL SHANKAR A
VIDYA GANGADHARAN(K/000424/2020)
ARYA SATHEESH(K/002139/2024)
DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 40551 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:8429
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.40551 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the 3 rd
respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's
bank account bearing No.0092053000026349.
2. The petitioner's case is that, he is the holder of
the above bank account with the 3rd respondent bank. The
said account has been debit freezed by the 3rd respondent
pursuant to the requisitions received from the 4 th
respondent. The action of the 3 rd respondent is arbitrary.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the learned DSGI and the learned counsel
appearing for the 3rd respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent bank
submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.3,000/-. The
said submission is recorded.
5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in
WP(C) NO. 40551 OF 2024
2025:KER:8429
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 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],
WP(C) NO. 40551 OF 2024
2025:KER:8429
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 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
WP(C) NO. 40551 OF 2024
2025:KER:8429
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 3rd 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
WP(C) NO. 40551 OF 2024
2025:KER:8429
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 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
WP(C) NO. 40551 OF 2024
2025:KER:8429
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
rkc/03.02.25
WP(C) NO. 40551 OF 2024
2025:KER:8429
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40551/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
BR/GEN/143/2024-25 DATED 12.11.2024
ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
01.11.2024 IN W.P.(C) NO. 38323/2024 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
