Vidhyanand C.S vs State Bank Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 2605 Ker

Kerala High Court

Vidhyanand C.S vs State Bank Of India on 20 January, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                          2025:KER:3984
WP(C) NO. 39661 OF 2024

                                 1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
     MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 30TH POUSHA, 1946
                      WP(C) NO. 39661 OF 2024

PETITIONER:
          VIDHYANAND C.S.
          AGED 35 YEARS
          S/O SHAJI C. D., CHIRAKKULAM VEEDU, IRINJALAKUDA
          NORTH, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680125


             BY ADVS.
             AMBADI MURALI
             NIDHIN K.N.
             NEERAJ T.N.
             GOPIKRISHNAN R.


RESPONDENTS:
    1     STATE BANK OF INDIA
          REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER P B NO. 32, 5BY50 MAIN
          RD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680121

      2      STATION HOUSE OFFICER
             CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, KGF NEAR ARTO OFFICE,
             PEDDAPALLI, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS, ROBERTSONPET,
             KARNATAKA, PIN - 563120

      3      STATION HOUSE OFFICER
             CYBER POLICE STATION NORTH WEST DELHI, PIN - 110034


             BY ADV AMAL GEORGE
             SC SRI JITHESH MENON


       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   20.01.2025,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                       2025:KER:3984
WP(C) NO. 39661 OF 2024

                                 2
                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of January, 2025

The writ petition is filed to direct the 1 st

respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's

bank account bearing No.32457510651.

2.The petitioner is the holder of the above bank

account with the 1st respondent bank. The petitioner

states that the 1st respondent has frozen the petitioner's

bank account pursuant to a requisition received from the

respondents 2 and 3. The action of the 1 st 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 first

respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent

bank submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.4,39,555/-.

The said submission is recorded.

5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in 2025:KER:3984 WP(C) NO. 39661 OF 2024

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 (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 2025:KER:3984 WP(C) NO. 39661 OF 2024

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.

(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 2025:KER:3984 WP(C) NO. 39661 OF 2024

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 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 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 2025:KER:3984 WP(C) NO. 39661 OF 2024

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 rmm20/1/2025 2025:KER:3984 WP(C) NO. 39661 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39661/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE INTIMATION PROVIDED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BANK DATED 24/11/2023

Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE INTIMATION PROVIDED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 09/05/2023,

Copy of the E-mail Copy of the E-mail to R2

Copy of the E-mail Copy of the E-mail to R3