Abdul Rasheed C vs The Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 4194 Ker

Kerala High Court

Abdul Rasheed C vs The Union Of India on 18 February, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                   2025:KER:13402
W.P.(C.) No. 42543 OF 2024
                                    1

              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. 42543 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

             ABDUL RASHEED C
             AGED 45 YEARS
             S/O ABDU HAJI CHEERATHADAYAN (H), MUNDEKARADU ,
             MANNARKAD PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582


             BY ADVS.
             ABDUL JAWAD K.
             ABDUL MAJEED.N
             A.GRANCY JOSE
             AYSHA A.A.




RESPONDENTS:

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

     2       THE INDIAN CYBERCRIME CO-ORDINATION CENTRE
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 5TH
             FLOOR, NDCC - II BUILDING, JAISINGH ROAD, NEW
             DELHI, PIN - 110001

     3       THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
             REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
             OF RAJASTHAN, SECRETARIAT, JAIPUR, PIN - 302005

     4       THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
             POLICE HEADQUARTERS, RAJASTHAN, PIN - 302004
                                                    2025:KER:13402
W.P.(C.) No. 42543 OF 2024
                                 2


     5       THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK
             REP BY ITS MANAGER, MANNARKKAD BRANCH, NAFEESA
             SQUARE, OPP KSEB MAIN ROAD, MANARKKAD PO, PALAKKAD,
             PIN - 678582

     6       THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
             REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, RBI,
             BAKERY JUNCTION, NANDAVANAM, VAZHUTHACADU,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033


             BY ADVS.
             Sunil shankar a
             vidya gangadharan(k/000424/2020)
             jerin george(k/863/2023)
             DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                     2025:KER:13402
 W.P.(C.) No. 42543 OF 2024
                                   3



                            C.S.DIAS, J
                   ---------------------------------
                 W.P.(C.) No. 42543 of 2024
          --------------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 18th day of February, 2025


                              JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to direct the 5 th respondent

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

bearing No.0048073000001071.

2. The petitioner is the holder of the above bank

account with the 5th respondent bank. The petitioner

contends that the 5th respondent has frozen the petitioner's

bank account pursuant to the requisitions received from

the Police. The action of the 5th respondent is illegal and

arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, the learned DSGI and the learned counsel

appearing for the 5th respondent.

2025:KER:13402 W.P.(C.) No. 42543 OF 2024

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 5 th

respondent submitted that even though the requisitions

have been received by the 5th respondent no amount has

been mentioned in the requisitions. The said submission

is recorded.

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 2025:KER:13402 W.P.(C.) No. 42543 OF 2024

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 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:

2025:KER:13402 W.P.(C.) No. 42543 OF 2024

"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.

In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ 2025:KER:13402 W.P.(C.) No. 42543 OF 2024

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 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 2025:KER:13402 W.P.(C.) No. 42543 OF 2024

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
  SCB.18.02.25                                       JUDGE
                                                         2025:KER:13402
W.P.(C.) No. 42543 OF 2024


                      APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42543/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit - P1                 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
                             21.11.2024 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit - P2                 TRUE COPIES OF THE TELEPHONIC MESSAGES
                             SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 5TH
                             RESPONDENT BANK

Exhibit - P3                 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF

ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER

Exhibit - P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/02/2024 IN W.P.(C).5165/2024