Kerala High Court
Adil K vs Esaf Small Finance Bank Ltd on 10 February, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:10596
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 21ST MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 40320 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ADIL K
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O SHAHUL HAMEED, KUNIYIL HOUSE,
MAMBAD, VADAPURAM, MALAPPURAM
KERALA, PIN - 676542
BY ADV HAMDAN MANSOOR K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 ESAF SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
EDAKKARA BRANCH, MUSLIYARANGADI P.O,
EDAKKARA, KERALA, PIN - 679331
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 BRIHAN MUMBAI CITY CYBER POLICE STATION
1ST FLOOR, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX RD, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA, INDIA, PIN - 400051
6 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
BANGLORE CITY SOUTH EAST POLICE STATION,
BANGLORE KARNATAKA ( IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
10.02.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 )
2025:KER:10596
WP(C) NO.40320 of 2024 2
7 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KADAKAL POLICE STATION, KADAKKAL
KOTTARAKARA, KERALA-691536 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 10.02.2025 IN I.A.NO.1/2025
BY ADV RASHMI.K.V
OTHER PRESENT:
DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SRI B S SYAMANTHAK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10596
WP(C) NO.40320 of 2024 3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2025
The writ petition is filed to direct the first
respondent bank to lift the debit freezing of the
petitioner's bank account bearing No. 50220002367850.
2. The petitioner is the holder of the above
bank account with the first respondent bank. The
petitioner's bank account has been debit frozen by the
first respondent pursuant to the requisition received
from the police. The action of the first respondent is
illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, the learned counsel for the first
respondent and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the first
respondent submitted that the disputed amount is
Rs.93,683/-. The said submission is recorded.
5. In considering an identical matter, this
2025:KER:10596
Court in 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],
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
2025:KER:10596
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 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
2025:KER:10596
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 first 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;
(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
2025:KER:10596
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
mtk/10.02.25
2025:KER:10596
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40320/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE COMPLAINT
DATED 27.08.2024
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE COMPLAINT
DATED 20.07.2024
