Kerala High Court
Devind P vs The Federal Bank Limited Represented By ... on 16 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:3636
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025/26TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 40956 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
DEVIND P,
AGED 22 YEARS,
S/O SURENDRAN P, PARAMBATH KOROTH ROAD,
VADAKARA, AZHIYUR, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673 309.
BY ADVS.
VISWANATH SALISH
NIDHA SHERIN
SANDRA PAUL
ZAKIYA ISMAIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS BANK
MANAGER,
MAHE BRANCH, AZADHI, BUILDING STATUE,
JUNCTION, MAHE, KERALA,
PIN - 673 310.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, SARVODAYNAGAR
SOCIETY, SECTOR 30, GANDHINAGAR,
GUJARAT, PIN - 382 030.
3 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH,
ITANAGAR, PIN - 791 113.
SC SRI MOHUN JACOB GEORGE
W.P.(C).No.40956 of 2024
2025:KER:3636
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 16.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.40956 of 2024
2025:KER:3636
-3-
C.S.DIAS, J
---------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.40956 of 2024
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the 1 st respondent
bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's bank account
bearing No.16520100079879.
2. The petitioner's case is that, he is the holder of
the above bank account with the 1st respondent bank. The
1st respondent has frozen the petitioner's bank account
pursuant to a requisition received from the police. 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 the Bank.
4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent bank
submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.59,400/-. The said
submission is recorded.
2025:KER:3636
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
2025:KER:3636
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 negative impact on
the validity of the seizure. In such circumstances,
account holders like the petitioner, most of whom
2025:KER:3636
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 applies to the facts of the case on hand.
In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ
petition by passing the following directions:
2025:KER:3636
(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 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 directions (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
2025:KER:3636
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
ADS
2025:KER:3636
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40956/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL EMAIL
RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BANK DATED 25.10.2024.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT
INDICATING THE SALE OF 1,065.07 USDT
WORTH RS 1,00,000 /- BY THE PETITIONER
DATED 23.02.2024.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT
INDICATING THE SALE OF 1,799.97 USDT
WORTH RS 1,69, 000/- BY THE PETITIONER
DATED 23.02.2024.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT
INDICATING THE SALE OF 1,128.98 USDT
WORTH RS 1,06,000/- BY THE PETITIONER
DATED 23.02.2024.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT
INDICATING THE SALE OF 1,533.70 USDT
WORTH RS 1,44,000/- BY THE PETITIONER
DATED 23.02.2024.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT
INDICATING THE SALE OF 2,769.19 USDT
WORTH RS 2,60,000/- BY THE PETITIONER
DATED 23.02.2024
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT
INDICATING THE SALE OF 1,310.04 USDT
WORTH RS 1,23,000/- BY THE PETITIONER
DATED 23.02.2024.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT
INDICATING THE SALE OF 509.16 USDT WORTH
RS 47,805.97/- BY THE PETITIONER DATED
23.02.2024.
2025:KER:3636
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) 12960 OF
2023 DATED 25.09.2023.
