Kerala High Court
Nishad M.M vs Station House Officer, Delhi South on 14 February, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:12352
WP(C) NO. 38183 OF 2024
1
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. 38183 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
NISHAD M.M.
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED KOYA, MULLAYAN PARAMBIL, PANAMBAD,
PURANGU- POST, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679584
BY ADVS.
SAHL ABDUL KADER
ABHIRAMI.S
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DELHI SOUTH
EAST CYBER POLICE STATION, ROOM NO. 114 & 124,
IST FLOOR, PS C.R PARK COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. EMAIL.
ID: [email protected], PIN - 110087
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE- STATE CYBER CRIME
CELL
MADHYA PRADESH. 256, GODHRA HWY, PIPLIYAHANA,
INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH, EMAIL ID:
[email protected], PIN - 452001
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
GANDHI NAGAR POLICE INSPECTOR, JAIPUR CITY (EAST)
GANDHI NAGAR, EMAIL ID :
[email protected], PIN
- 302015
2025:KER:12352
WP(C) NO. 38183 OF 2024
2
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PREMNAGAR POLICE STATION . JHANSI, SIPRI BAZAR,
EMAIL ID : [email protected], PIN - 284003
5 THE MANAGER HDFC BANK LTD
BRANCH EDAPPAL, VEE PEE TOWER, 1ST FLOOR,
EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679576
BY ADVS.
SATHISAN .P
SHIBU B.S(K/001060/2021)
JAVED HAIDER(K/001709/2018)
BIJU P.PAUL(K/000648/2022)
AKSHARA RAJU(K/4111/2023)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:12352
WP(C) NO. 38183 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025
The writ petition is filed to direct the 5 th
respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's
bank account bearing No.50100466743055.
2.The petitioner is the holder of the above bank
account with the 5th respondent bank. The petitioner
states that the 5th respondent has frozen the
petitioner's bank account pursuant to the requisitions
received from the respondents 1 to 4. The action of
the 5th respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence,
this writ petition.
3.Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the
fifth respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent
bank submitted that the total disputed amount is
Rs.53,320/- The said submission is recorded.
2025:KER:12352
WP(C) NO. 38183 OF 2024
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:12352
WP(C) NO. 38183 OF 2024
(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.
2025:KER:12352
WP(C) NO. 38183 OF 2024
(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:
(i) The 5th 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
2025:KER:12352
WP(C) NO. 38183 OF 2024
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
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
rmm14/2/2025
2025:KER:12352
WP(C) NO. 38183 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38183/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF 1ST PAGE OF THE BANK
PASSBOOK OF THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT
NO. 50100466743055 AT 5TH RESPONDENT
BANK.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE PRINTOUT OF E MAIL, DATED
12/09/2024, SENT BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY E MAIL, DATED
12/09/2024, TO EXHIBIT P3.
Exhibit P5 TRUE PRINTOUT OF THE EMAIL DATED
01/10/2024 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE PRINTOUT OF THE EMAIL DATED
03/10/2024 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE PRINTOUT OF THE EMAIL DATED
05/10/2024 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF
PETITIONER'S BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED
WITH 5TH RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD
04/08/2024 TO 24/09/2024.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 31/07/2024 FOR
THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2024-2025.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/10/2024
IN WP(C) NO. 36317 OF 2024 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
