Air Guide Travel And Tours vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 4190 Ker

Kerala High Court

Air Guide Travel And Tours vs Union Of India on 18 February, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                      2025:KER:13811
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

     TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA, 1946

                       WP(C) NO. 3525 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

          AIR GUIDE TRAVEL AND TOURS
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER IHSAN AJMAL S/O IMBICHIKOYA,
          THADAVANTE PARAMBATH CHEEKKONNU, NARIPPATTA, KOZHIKODE,
          PIN - 673507


          BY ADVS.
          AJAS K.S.
          P.E.SAJAL




RESPONDENTS:

    1     UNION OF INDIA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
          NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

    2     NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL
          REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY - 8,
          MAHIPALPUR, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110037

    3     AXIS BANK LIMITED
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER NADAPURAM BRANCH, KAKKACHIL
          ROAD NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673506


          DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA
          SC SRI MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 3525 OF 2025       2


                                                  2025:KER:13811
                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of February, 2025

The writ petition is filed to direct the 3rd respondent

bank to lift the debit freezing of the petitioner's bank

account bearing No.923020047820524.

2. The petitioner is the holder of the above bank

account with the 3rd respondent bank. The petitioner

contends that the 3rd respondent bank has frozen the

petitioner's bank account pursuant to a requisition received

from the 2nd respondent. The action of the 3rd respondent is

illegal and arbitrary.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd

respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for 3rd respondent

submitted that the petitioner's bank account has been

completely debit freezed. On a perusal of Ext.P1, it has been

found that the lien amount is Rs.10,000/-.

5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in

Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826]

2025:KER:13811 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:13811 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:13811

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 3rd 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 the contentions in this Writ Petition are left open and reserved to them, to impel in future;

2025:KER:13811

(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 AJ

2025:KER:13811

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3525/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK DATED 15.01.2025