Kerala High Court
Najeeb Pullat vs Federal Bank on 16 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:3501
W.P.(C.) No. 45293 of 2024
1
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. 45293 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
NAJEEB PULLAT
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O MOHAMED KUTTY PULLAT, PULLAT HOSE, THEENDEKKAD,
KANNAMANGALAM PO , KANNAMANGALAM, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 676304
BY ADV SADIQALI.M
RESPONDENTS:
1 FEDERAL BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, OORAKAM
BRANCH,MALIYEKKAL BUILDING VENGARA, OPPOSITE GVHSS,
OORAKAM, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676304
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, BHABANI BHABAN,
31 BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL,
PIN - 700027
SC SRI MOHUN JACOB GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:3501
W.P.(C.) No. 45293 of 2024
2
C.S.DIAS, J
---------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.45293 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.12940200067026.
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 2nd respondent. The
action of the 1st respondent is illegal and arbitrary.
Hence, this writ petition.
2025:KER:3501
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for
the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent bank submitted that the disputed
amount is Rs.1,50,000/-. 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.
2025:KER:3501
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.
2025:KER:3501
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
2025:KER:3501
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.
2025:KER:3501
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:
(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
2025:KER:3501
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 future;
(v) The jurisdictional police officers shall
inform the Bank whether the seizure of the bank
account has been reported to the jurisdictional
2025:KER:3501
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
SCB.16.01.25. JUDGE
2025:KER:3501
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 45293/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SEND BY THE
PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
10/12/2024
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 09-09-2024
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT DATED
06-09-2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
