Ajsal Kainadan vs The Grievance Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 4454 Ker

Kerala High Court

Ajsal Kainadan vs The Grievance Officer on 24 February, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                2025:KER:15540
WP(C) NO. 4046 OF 2025

                                 1


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

 MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1946

                     WP(C) NO. 4046 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

         AJSAL KAINADAN
         AGED 21 YEARS
         S/O. BASHEER ., RESIDING AT KAINADAN HOUSE,
         MUTHEDAM POST., MALAPPURAM, KERALA,, PIN - 673641


         BY ADVS.
         HAMZATH ALI V.K.
         AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K.
         MUHAMMAD SHAMEEL K.
         ABDULLA FUHAD K.
         AYISHA THASLEEMA N.P.




RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE GRIEVANCE OFFICER
         NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL - NCCRP,
         KERALA REGION, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
         GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
         VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010

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

    3    THE NILAMBUR CO-OPERATIVE BANK
         EDAKKARA, EDAKKARA PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
         KERALA, PIN - 679331
                                                          2025:KER:15540
WP(C) NO. 4046 OF 2025

                                      2


     4     PULIBUR POLICE STATION
           BHATEMORA, JORHAT DISTRICT, ASSAM REPRESENTED BY
           THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PIN - 785006

     5     SOUTH REGION POLICE STATION
           GRANT ROAD (EAST), GIRGAON, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PIN -
           400007

     6     CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION
           HYDERABAD CITY, CENTRAL CRIME STATION BUILDING,
           OLD COMMISSIONER OFFICE, BASEERBAGH, HYDERABAD,
           TELANGANA, PIN - 500029

           DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA
           GP SRI B S SYAMANTHAK


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   24.02.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                               2025:KER:15540
WP(C) NO. 4046 OF 2025

                              3



                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of February, 2025

The writ petition is filed to direct the 3 rd

respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's

bank account bearing No.00701010007333.

2.The petitioner is the holder of the above bank

account with the 3rd respondent bank. The petitioner

states that the 3rd respondent has frozen the petitioner's

bank account pursuant to the requisition received from

the police. The action of the 3rd respondent is illegal and

arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the

learned Deputy Solicitor General of India.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that as per Ext.P2, the disputed amount is

Rs.1,55,050/-. The said submission is recorded.

5. In considering an identical matter, this Court 2025:KER:15540 WP(C) NO. 4046 OF 2025

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 2025:KER:15540 WP(C) NO. 4046 OF 2025

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:15540 WP(C) NO. 4046 OF 2025

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 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 2025:KER:15540 WP(C) NO. 4046 OF 2025

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 rmm24/2/2025 2025:KER:15540 WP(C) NO. 4046 OF 2025

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4046/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER'S SAVINGS ACCOUNT, HAVING ACCOUNT NO. 00701010007333 MAINTAINED IN THE NILAMBUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK. ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE COMMUNICATION GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER REGARDING THE ALLEGED CYBER-CRIME BY 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P2A A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE COMMUNICATION GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER REGARDING THE ALLEGED CYBER-CRIME BY 5TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P2B A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE COMMUNICATION GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER REGARDING THE ALLEGED CYBER-CRIME BY 6TH RESPONDENT