Kerala High Court
Abdulla Seedinte Veetil vs Union Of India on 25 February, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:15921
WP(C) NO. 3044 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3044 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ABDULLA SEEDINTE VEETIL
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O HAMZA , CRESCENT VILLA, THEKKEPURAM,PADANE
PO, KASARGOD, KERALA , PRESENTLY RESID AT ABDULLA
SV,STAY 2 BUILDING ROOM 121,ALTWAR PARK NEAR
FREEZONE METRO ,STATION AL QUSAISE 1ST DUBAI, PIN
- 671312
BY ADVS.
P.C.ANIL KUMAR
MANU.M.THOMAS
P.SREESHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 SOUTH INDIAN BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, DO.NO.239, WARD
NO.III, ROYAL COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD THRIKKARIPUR
P.O, THRIKARIPUR, KASARGOD, PIN - 671310
3 ASST COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION CYBERABAD, JAYABHERI
PINE VALLEY, GACHIBOWLI, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA,
PIN - 500032
2025:KER:15921
WP(C) NO. 3044 OF 2025
2
4 INSPECTOR CYBER CELL
MAIN BAZAR, AGRAHARAM, ELURU, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN
- 534001
BY ADVS.
Sunil Shankar A
VIDYA GANGADHARAN(K/000424/2020)
DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA GP SRI B SYAMANTHAK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:15921
WP(C) NO. 3044 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2025
The writ petition is filed to direct the 2 nd
respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's
bank account bearing No.7777051000040502.
2.The petitioner is the holder of the above bank
account with the 2nd respondent bank. The petitioner
states that the 2nd respondent has frozen the
petitioner's bank account pursuant to the requisition
received from the police. The action of the 2 nd
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 counsel for the second
respondent.
4.The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent
bank submitted that the disputed amount is
2025:KER:15921
WP(C) NO. 3044 OF 2025
Rs.1,94,534/-. 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 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:15921
WP(C) NO. 3044 OF 2025
(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:15921
WP(C) NO. 3044 OF 2025
(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 2nd 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:15921
WP(C) NO. 3044 OF 2025
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
rmm25/2/2025
2025:KER:15921
WP(C) NO. 3044 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3044/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION
FROM THE FRM CELL, SOUTH INDIAN BANK
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
RECEIVED FROM THE BANK
Annexure Copy of Email dated 15.02.2025
