Kerala High Court
Muhamood C vs Federal Bank on 11 February, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:10997
W.P.(C.) No. 1330 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 22ND MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 1330 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MUHAMOOD C
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O ABDU RAHIMAN, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, VILAYIL PARAPPUR,
VILAYIL PO, MUTHUVALLUR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN -
673641
BY ADV HAMDAN MANSOOR K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 FEDERAL BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, EDAVANNAPPARA BRANCH,
EDAVANNAPPARA, MAPAUURAM, KERALA, PIN - 673645
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 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CEN POLICE STATION, CYBER CELL SOUTH BENGALURU -,
PIN - 560001
2025:KER:10997
W.P.(C.) No. 1330 OF 2025
2
DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA GP SRI B S SYAMANTHAK SC SRI
MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10997
W.P.(C.) No. 1330 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J
---------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.1330 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the 1 st respondent
bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's bank account
bearing No.16000100147778.
2. The petitioner is the holder of the above bank
account with the 1st respondent bank. The petitioner
contends that the 1st respondent has frozen the petitioner's
bank account pursuant to the requisition received from the
5th respondent. The action of the 1st respondent is illegal
and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the
learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
2025:KER:10997
W.P.(C.) No. 1330 OF 2025
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent submitted that the petitioner's bank account
has been debit freezed. The disputed amount is
Rs.50,000/- . 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:
" 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
2025:KER:10997
W.P.(C.) No. 1330 OF 2025
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
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
2025:KER:10997
W.P.(C.) No. 1330 OF 2025
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
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:
2025:KER:10997
W.P.(C.) No. 1330 OF 2025
(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;
(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
2025:KER:10997
W.P.(C.) No. 1330 OF 2025
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
SCB.11.02.25 JUDGE
2025:KER:10997
W.P.(C.) No. 1330 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1330/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PASSBOOK OF THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE
COMPLAINT DATED 05.11.2024
