Kerala High Court
Ibrahim Shah P O vs Union Of India on 11 February, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:10971
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. 16951 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
IBRAHIM SHAH P O
AGED 31 YEARS
C/O ABDULLA P O, PUTHIYA OTTAYIL HOUSE,
PUTHUKKULAM, PARAPPANANGADI,
MALAPPURAM,KERALA, PIN - 676319
BY ADVS.
T.S.SARATH
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
M.KIRANLAL
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SAMEER M NAIR
JOTHISHA K.A.
SAILAKSHMI MENON
AASHI K. SHAJAN
SMT.AKHILA B.
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI- PIN - 110001
REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY [email protected],
2 NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS NODAL CYBER CELL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
CID, 4TH FLOOR, POLICE BHAVAN,
SECTOR - 18, GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT CC-
[email protected], PIN - 382018
3 NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS NODAL CYBER CELL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE STATE CYBER POLICE,
POLICE RADIO HEADQUARTERS, BHADBHADA ROAD,
BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH [email protected],
PIN - 462001
4 NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS NODAL CYBER CELL OFFICER,
ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING, TAMILNADU, SMT. MEENA,
2025:KER:10971
WP(C) NO.16951 of 2024 2
SIDCO, ALANDUR ROAD,SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
GUINDY, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU [email protected],
PIN - 600032
5 INDIAN CYBERCRIME COORDINATION CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
5TH FLOOR, NDCC-II BUILDING, JAI SINGH ROAD,
NEW DELHI [email protected], PIN - 110001
6 STATE OF GUJARAT
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, 5TH FLOOR,
BLOCK NO. 1, SARDAR BHAVAN SACHIVALAYA,
GANDHINAGAR,GUJURAT [email protected],
PIN - 382010
7 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, 3RD FLOOR,
VALLABH BHAVAN - II, MANTRALAYA, BHOPAL,
MADHYA PRADESH [email protected], PIN - 462004
8 STATE OF TAMILNADU
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU.
[email protected],
PIN - 600009
9 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
GUJARAT STATE POLICE BHAVAN,
GANDHINAGAR SECTOR 18, GANDHINAGAR,
GUJARAT [email protected], PIN - 382021
0 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, SWAMI DAYANAND NAGAR,
JAHANGIRABAD CITY, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH
[email protected], PIN - 462008
11 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POST BOX NO.601, DR.RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, MYLAPORE,
CHENNAI, TAMILNADU [email protected], PIN - 600004
12 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, NIGAM NAGAR,
CHANDKHEDA, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT POLSTN-CHANDKH-
[email protected], PIN - 382424
13 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PIPLODA POLICE STATION, MADHYA RADESH SHO.PSPIPLOD-
[email protected], PIN - 457331
2025:KER:10971
WP(C) NO.16951 of 2024 3
14 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
TAMBARAM POLICE STATION, MUTHULINGAM ST,
NEW MARKET, WEST TAMBARAM, TAMBARAM, CHENNAI,
TAMIL NADU [email protected],
PIN - 600045
15 THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, RBI,
BAKERY JUNCTION, NANDAVANAM, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA [email protected],
PIN - 695033
16 INDUSIND BANK
PEEKAY'S ARCADE, OPP. PRIVATE BUS STAND,
DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
[email protected],
PIN - 676519
17 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
ANANGADI - PARAPPANANAGADI ROAD,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER [email protected],
PIN - 676303
18 DBS BANK
TOWER, 6TH FLOOR, THE RUBY,29, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG,
DADAR WEST, DADAR, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
[email protected], PIN - 400028
19 CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK
GROUND FLOOR, VPH COMPLEX, NEAR GLP SCHOOL,
CHETTIPADI, KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
[email protected], PIN - 676319
BY ADV MINI GOPINATH
OTHER PRESENT:
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI SANTHEEP ANKARATH
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI MADHURADHAKRISHNAN
STANDING COUNSEL-SRI SUBEESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10971
WP(C) NO.16951 of 2024 4
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2025
The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents
16 to 19 banks to lift the debit freezing of the
petitioner's bank accounts bearing Nos. 258089161554,
4522000100047564, 8811010003126594 and
076407792245195001.
2. The petitioner is the holder of the above
four bank accounts with the respondents 16 to 19. The
petitioner's bank accounts have been debit frozen
pursuant to the requisitions received from the police.
The action of the respondents 16 to 19 is illegal and
arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, the learned Central Government Counsel
and the learned counsel for the 17th respondent.
4. When the writ petition came up for
consideration on 03.05.2024, this Court directed the
banks to freeze the petitioner's bank accounts to the
2025:KER:10971
extent of the disputed amount. The said order was
extended from time to time.
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
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
2025:KER:10971
(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 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.
2025:KER:10971
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 respondents 16 to 19 Banks are directed
to confine the freezing order of the petitioner's
bank accounts only to the extent of the amount
mentioned in the order/requisitions issued by the
Police Authorities. The above exercise shall be
done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioner to
transact through his accounts beyond the said
limit;
(ii). The Police Authorities are hereby directed
to inform the Banks as to whether freezing of the
petitioner's accounts will be required to be
continued even in the afore manner; and if so, for
what further time;
(iii). 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;
(iv). If, however, no information or intimation is
received by the Banks 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
2025:KER:10971
and reserved to him, to impel in future;
(v). The jurisdictional police officers shall inform
the Banks whether the seizure of the bank
accounts have 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
Banks within two months of receipt of a copy of
this judgment, the Banks shall lift the debit freeze
or remove the lien, as the case may be, on the
petitioner's bank accounts;
(vi) In order to enable the Police to comply
with the above direction, the Banks, 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/11.02.25
2025:KER:10971
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16951/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSACTION DETAILS
MADE FROM THE PETITIONER'S ACCOUNT FROM
26-11-2023 TO 26-11-2023
