Jamsheer Babu Cheruparambil vs The Inspector Of Police
2025 Latest Caselaw 4065 Ker

Kerala High Court

Jamsheer Babu Cheruparambil vs The Inspector Of Police on 14 February, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                       2025:KER:12486



                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. 4806 OF 2025

PETITIONER/S:

          JAMSHEER BABU CHERUPARAMBIL
          AGED 50 YEARS
          S/O MOHAMED, RESIDING AT CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
          THIRUNNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676301

          BY ADVS.
          ASWIN GOPAKUMAR
          ANWIN GOPAKUMAR
          ADITYA VENUGOPALAN
          MAHESH CHANDRAN
          SARANYA BABU
          ANJANA A.
          ABHISHEK S.
          TANYA KADEEJA


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
          THIRTHAHALLI POLICE STATION,
          SOPPUGUDDE, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT,
          KARNATAKA, PIN. (EMAIL: [email protected]),
          PIN - 577432

    2     ICICI BANK LIMITED
          HAVING ITS BRANCH NADAKKAVU CROSS ROAD,
          KOZHIKODE, KERALA .
          REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 673011

          BY ADVS.
          SHAHIER SINGH M.
          SHARAN SHAHIER(K/1202/2010)



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                    2025:KER:12486
WP(C) NO.4806 of 2025          2



                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025

The writ petition is filed to direct the second

respondent bank to lift the debit freezing of the

petitioner's bank account bearing No. 193805500187.

2. The petitioner is the holder of the above

bank account with the second respondent bank. The

petitioner's bank account has been debit frozen by the

second respondent pursuant to the requisition received

from the first respondent. The action of the second

respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ

petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second

respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the second

respondent submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.

31,100/-. The said submission is recorded.

2025:KER:12486

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 2025:KER:12486

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.

7. I am in complete agreement with the views in 2025:KER:12486

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 second 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;

2025:KER:12486

(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 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/14.02.25 2025:KER:12486

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4806/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 94 OF BHARATHIYA NYAYA SURAKSHA SANHITA & 2(A)(B) OF BANKERS BOOK OF EVIDENCE ACT, 1891 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RESPONDENT NO.2