Kerala High Court
Haseena Angillath vs The Union Of India on 10 February, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 42309 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:10684
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. 42309 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
HASEENA ANGILLATH
AGED 42 YEARS
/O HAMSA KOLETH, APPATTILLATH POOVALAPPU, SOUTH
TRIKKARIPPUR PO, KASARGOD, PIN - 671611
BY ADVS.
P.C.ANIL KUMAR
MANU.M.THOMAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 HDFC BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, TRADE CENTRE, NEAR NEW
BUS STAND ROAD, PAYYANUR, KANNUR,, PIN - 670307
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CEN POLICE STATION
CHIKKABALLAPURA RAMAMURTHY RD, CHIKKABALLAPUR,
KARNATAKA, PIN - 562101
SC SRI SHAHEIR SINGH DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 42309 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:10684
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 42309 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the 2nd
respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's
bank account bearing No.50100617912464.
2. The petitioner's case is that, she is the holder
of the above bank account with the 2nd respondent bank.
The said account has been debit freezed by the 2 nd
respondent pursuant to the requisition received from the
3rd respondent. The action of the 2nd respondent is
arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, learned DSGI and the learned counsel
appearing for the 2nd respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent
submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.2/- lakh. The
said submission is recorded.
5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in
WP(C) NO. 42309 OF 2024
2025:KER:10684
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. 42309 OF 2024
2025:KER:10684
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
WP(C) NO. 42309 OF 2024
2025:KER:10684
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 2nd 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 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
WP(C) NO. 42309 OF 2024
2025:KER:10684
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;
(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
WP(C) NO. 42309 OF 2024
2025:KER:10684
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
rkc/10.02.25
WP(C) NO. 42309 OF 2024
2025:KER:10684
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42309/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL
