Kerala High Court

Prestige Estates Projects Limited vs Union Of India on 14 February, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                2025:KER:12497



          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. 37779 OF 2024

PETITIONERS:

         PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED
         NO. 801, 8TH FLOOR, PRESTIGE TMS SQUARE, NH-66
         BYPASS, PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY,
         KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
         MR. THANKACHAN THOMAS V, PIN - 682024

         BY ADVS.
         ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS
         V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
         ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
         ISAAC THOMAS
         P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM
         JOHN VITHAYATHIL



RESPONDENTS:

    1    UNION OF INDIA
         MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
         UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 110011

    2    INDIAN CYBERCRIME COODINATION CENTRE,
         5TH FLOOR, NDCC-II BUILDING,
         JAI SINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

    3    RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
         REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR,
         HEAD OFFICE, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400029

    4    MANAGER, KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK
         GROUND & FIRST FLOOR,
                                                          2025:KER:12497
WP(C) NO.37779 of 2024                2


            MAKER MAHAL, TURNER RD, BANDRA WEST, MUMBAI,
            MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400050

    5       DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
            STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
            VELLAYAMBALAM,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010

    6       SWAPNALI SHINDE, POLICE INSPECTOR
            CYBER POLICE STATION,
            POLICE HEADQUARTERS, SHIVAJINAGAR,
            PUNE, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 411005

    7       ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
            CEN POLICE STATION WHITEFIELD,
            BANGALORE, PIN - 560048

    8       PRATEEK BHARTIA
            G082, DLF NEW TOWN HEIGHTS,
            SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD,
            KAKKANAD COCHIN, PIN - 682030


OTHER PRESENT:

             STANDING COUNSEL- SRI R S KALKURA
             DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA


     THIS     WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)    HAVING   FINALLY   HEARD    ON
14.02.2025,     THE    COURT     ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED     THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                2025:KER:12497
WP(C) NO.37779 of 2024        3



                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025

The writ petition is filed to direct the fourth

respondent bank to lift the debit freezing of the

petitioner's bank account bearing No. 2714061308.

2. The petitioner is the holder of the above

bank account with the fourth respondent bank. The

petitioner's bank account has been debit frozen by the

fourth respondent pursuant to the requisition received

from the police. The action of the fourth respondent is

illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of

India and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the disputed amount is Rs. 14,45,945/-.

The said submission is recorded.

5. In considering an identical matter, this 2025:KER:12497

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 2025:KER:12497

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

Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T cases (supra). The above 2025:KER:12497

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 fourth 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 their 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 them, to impel in future;

(v). The jurisdictional police officers shall inform 2025:KER:12497

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:12497

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37779/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RERA REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 03.01.2022 FOR THE PRESTIGE EDEN GARDEN ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF BOOKING APPLICATION FORM DATED 16.07.2022

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE O.W.NO. 8245 OF 2024 DATED 07.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. CENPS/CRMNO-

812/2024 L3 DATED 27.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 17.10.2024 ISSUED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD