Kerala High Court
Fathima Cm vs Union Of India on 16 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:3645
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. 45395 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
FATHIMA CM,
AGED 37 YEARS,
W/O MOHAMMED FAYIS CHALATTIL KALLADITHODI HOUSE,
MUTTIPPADI, MELMURI PO ERNAD MALAPPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 676 517.
BY ADVS.
RAFEEK. V.K.
NISHNA P.T.
ABDULLA JAMAL
LYDIA ELIZABETH KOVOOR
MUHAMMED BILAL
ANNLIYA FLEMIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110 000.
2 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
BY ITS GOVERNOR, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING,
SHAHID BHAGATH SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI,
MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400 001.
3 INDUSIND BANK LTD,
PEEKAY'S ARCADE, BUS STAND RD,
OPP. PRIVATE BUS STAND, DOWN HILL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 519.
W.P.(C).No.45395 of 2024
2025:KER:3645
-2-
4 DIVYANSH,
JJ COLONY Y 649-650 JANTA MARKET JJ COLONY
NANGLOI, PIN - 110 041.
5 SHYAM KUMAR,
BHANPUR BAREWA, GARAUL, VAISHALI BIHAR,
PIN - 844 118.
6 RAJNATH YADAV,
BABU K SHIVPUR POST ALGANJ BAIRIA BABU KE
SHIVPUR BAIRIA, PIN - 277 216.
7 RASHIK S,
MUTHALAMADA 1756 PAZAYAPATHA KOLLENGODE
MUTHALAMADA, PIN - 678 507.
8 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
DELHI OUTER DISTRICT CYBER POLICE STATION OUTER,
POLICE POST MANGOLPURI, PATTHAR MARKET,
OUTER RING ROAD, PITAMPURA NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110 086.
9 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
MSO BUILDING, INDRAPRASHTA MARG, IP ESTATE,
NEW DELHI, DELHI, PIN - 110 095.
10 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
BIHAR VAISHALI GAOROL POLICE STATION,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY 77, MAKHDUMPUR URF TAL BERAI,
BIHAR, PIN - 844 118.
11 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, RAJBANSI NAGAR,
PATNA, BIHAR, PIN - 800 001.
12 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
UTTAR PRADESH BALLIA DOKATI POLICE STATION,
DOKATI, SONABARSA, UTTAR PRADESH,
PIN - 277 204.
13 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, 9TH FLOOR, TOWER 2,
GOMTI NAGAR EXTENSION, SHAHID PATH, LUCKNOW,
W.P.(C).No.45395 of 2024
2025:KER:3645
-3-
UTTAR PRADESH, PIN - 226 002.
14 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KERALA PALAKKAD KOLLENDE POLICE STATION,
PUDUNAGARAM KOLLENGODE RD, PAYYALLUR,
KOLLENGODE, KERALA, PIN - 678 506.
15 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM,
CITY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 010.
DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
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.45395 of 2024
2025:KER:3645
-4-
C.S.DIAS, J
---------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.45395 of 2024
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the 3 rd
respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's
bank account bearing No.158943998080.
2. The petitioner's case is that, she is the holder
of the above bank account with the 3 rd respondent bank.
To the petitioner's surprise, the 3 rd respondent has frozen
the petitioner's bank account pursuant to requisitions
received from the police. The action of the 3 rd 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 3 rd
respondent Bank.
4. On a perusal of Exts.P3 to P6 notices, I find that
the disputed amount is Rs.2,10,812/-.
2025:KER:3645
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
2025:KER:3645
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:
"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
2025:KER:3645
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
2025:KER:3645
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:
(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 her 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
2025:KER:3645
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 her, 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,
2025:KER:3645
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:3645
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 45395/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE TO CONDUCT A
SMALL SCALE INDUSTRY OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CERTIFICATE DATED 29.03.2024.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DETAILS
DATED 26.09.2023.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DETAILS
DATED 27.09.2023.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DETAILS
DATED 27.09.2023.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DETAILS
DATED 26.08.2023.
