Kerala High Court
Jasmina T.P vs The South Indian Bank Ltd on 14 February, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 955 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:12395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 955 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JASMINA T.P
AGED 28 YEARS
D/O MAHAROOF, R/O THIRUVAMBADI, PULLOOKARA,
PERINGATHUR (PO), KANNUR,, PIN - 670675
BY ADV SRI.MAAROOF
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD
PERINGATHUR BRANCH,REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH
MANAGER CENTRE POINT, MARKET ROAD, NEAR JUMA
MASJID, PERINGATHUR KANNUR, PIN - 670675
2 THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
REGD. OFFICE,T.B.ROAD, THRISSUR REP. BY ITS
MANAGER, PIN - 680001
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR
RURAL, PIN - 680699
5 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
WP(C) NO. 955 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:12395
6 NODAL OFFICER
NOTATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL, MINISTRY
OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110037
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNIL SHANKAR A
SMT.VIDYA GANGADHARAN(K/000424/2020)
SMT.ARYA SATHEESH(K/002139/2024)
SRI T C KRISHNA, DSGI
SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 955 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:12395
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025
The writ petition is filed to direct the 1st
respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's
bank account bearing No.0966053000003126.
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 a requisition
received from the police. 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 counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent
bank submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.2,500/-.
The said submission is recorded.
2025:KER:12395
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 (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
2025:KER:12395
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
principles squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand.
2025:KER:12395
In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ
petition by passing the following directions:
(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 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
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
2025:KER:12395
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
NAB
2025:KER:12395
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 955/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
22.10.2024 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO
THE PETITIONER
