Kerala High Court

Flyscanner Holidays Pvt Ltd vs South Indian Bank on 10 January, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

WP(C) NO. 44212 OF 2024          1               2025:KER:1865



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

   FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 20TH POUSHA, 1946

                      WP(C) NO. 44212 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

          FLYSCANNER HOLIDAYS PVT LTD
          1ST FLOOR, CENTRAL ARCADE BUILDING, MINI BYPASS
          ROAD, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS
          AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR SUHAIB E. M,
          PIN - 673007


          BY ADV MAAROOF


RESPONDENTS:

    1     SOUTH INDIAN BANK
          FEROKE BRANCH, MARKET ROAD, FEROK,KOZHIKODE REP. BY
          ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 673631

    2     SOUTH INDIAN BANK
          HEAD OFFICE TB ROAD, MISSION QUARTERS, SAKTHAN
          THAMBURAN NAGAR, VELIANNUR, THRISSUR KERALA REP.
          BY MANAGER, PIN - 680001

    3     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          WARISGUDA POLICE STATION, HYDERABAD CITY,
          TELANGANA, PIN - 500061

    4     DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
          RED HILLS, BAPU NAGAR, HYDERABAD,TELANGANA,
          PIN - 500004

    5     NODAL OFFICER
          NOTATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL,
          MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110037
 WP(C) NO. 44212 OF 2024               2                      2025:KER:1865




             BY ADVS.
             Sunil Shankar A
             VIDYA GANGADHARAN(K/000424/2020)
             ARYA SATHEESH(K/002139/2024)



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   10.01.2025,   THE   COURT   ON       THE   SAME   DAY    DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 44212 OF 2024            3                 2025:KER:1865




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of January, 2025

This writ petition is filed to direct the 1 st

respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's

bank account bearing No.0134073000062664.

2. The petitioner's case is that, he is the holder of

the above bank account with the 1st respondent Bank. To

the petitioner's surprise, the 1st respondent has frozen the

petitioner's bank account pursuant to a requisition

received from the 3rd respondent. The action of the 1st

respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ

petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for

respondents 1 and 2. Service is complete on the other

respondents.

4. The learned counsel appearing for respondents

1 and 2 submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.5,000/-. WP(C) NO. 44212 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:1865

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 WP(C) NO. 44212 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:1865

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:

"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 WP(C) NO. 44212 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:1865

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 of receipt 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 applies to the facts of the case on WP(C) NO. 44212 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:1865

hand.

In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ

petition by passing the following directions:

(i). The 1st 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;

WP(C) NO. 44212 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:1865

(iv). If, however, no information or intimation is

received by the Bank in terms of directions (ii) above, the

petitioner will be at full liberty to approach this Court

again; for which purpose, all their contentions in this Writ

Petition are left open and reserved to them, 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