Kerala High Court
Fuad Usman Pv vs The Grievance Officer on 20 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:3982
WP(C) NO. 35404 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. 35404 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
FUAD USMAN PV
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O USMAN O, JUTHA BAZAAR PALLIVEED ,IDIYANGRA,
PARAPPIL P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673001
BY ADVS.
LATHEEF P.K.
SIDDIQUE C.
FAHAD HUSSAIN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE GRIEVANCE OFFICER
NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL-NCCRP,
KERALA REGION,REP. BY ADDITIONAL GENERAL OF
POLICE,POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
2 BRANCH MANAGER
ICICI BANK, MUMBAI WORLI BRANCH, BARODAWALA
MANSION, AB NAIR RD, SIDDHARTH NAGAR, WORLI,
MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400018
3 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL, MANIPUR, BABUPARA,
IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR, PIN - 795001
4 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL, CYBER TOWERS, 2ND
FLOOR, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA, PIN -
2025:KER:3982
WP(C) NO. 35404 OF 2024
2
500081
5 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CYBER CELL INVESTIGATION CELL, IG OFFICE
MAHARASHTRA, MAHARASHTRA CYBER, 32ND FLOOR, WORLD
TRADE CENTRE, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI, PIN - 400005
6 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CYBER PS CENTRAL DISTRICT, OLD BUILDING, KAMLA
MARKET, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110002
7 THE NATIONAL CYBER REPORTING CRIME PORTAL
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA
GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
SC SRI PRADEESH CHACKO
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:3982
WP(C) NO. 35404 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2025
The writ petition is filed to direct the 2 nd
respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's
bank account bearing No.041401524539.
2.The petitioner is the holder of the above bank
account with the 2nd respondent bank. The petitioner
states that the 2nd respondent has frozen the petitioner's
bank account pursuant to the requisitions received from
the respondents 3 to 6. The action of the 2 nd 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
second respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent
bank submitted that the disputed amount is
Rs.5,27,439/-. The said submission is recorded.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
2025:KER:3982
WP(C) NO. 35404 OF 2024
that notwithstanding the interim orders dated
18.11.2024 and 17.01.2025, the 2nd respondent Bank
debited amount Rs.25,000/- from the above account.
The said submission is recorded.
6. 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 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."
7. Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v.
2025:KER:3982
WP(C) NO. 35404 OF 2024
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 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
2025:KER:3982
WP(C) NO. 35404 OF 2024
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.
8. 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 2nd 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
2025:KER:3982
WP(C) NO. 35404 OF 2024
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 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:3982
WP(C) NO. 35404 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35404/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BANK SUMMARY OF
ACCOUNT AS ON 31-03-2024
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BANK DATED 25-09-2024
