Kerala High Court
Rizwan Rajab Kallilumbil vs South Indian Bank on 21 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:4322
WP(C) NO. 46003 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 1ST MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 46003 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
RIZWAN RAJAB KALLILUMBIL
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL SALAM, KALLILUMBIL HOUSE, THIRUNAVAYA
POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676301
BY ADVS.
R.SREEHARI
HAMZA A.V.
APARNA M.P.
CIBY PAUL
RESPONDENTS:
1 SOUTH INDIAN BANK
THIRUNAVAYA BRANCH, JM ARCADE, EDAKKULAM BAZAR,
THIRUNAVAYA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 676301
2 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CYBER CRIME DEPARTMENT, TAMILNADU, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL
ESTATE, GUINDY POST, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU, PIN -
600032
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CYBER, ECONOMIC AND NARCOTIC CRIME POLICE STATION,
EAST DIVISION - BANGALORE CITY POLICE, BROADWAY
ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR POST, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA
STATE, PIN - 560051
2025:KER:4322
WP(C) NO. 46003 OF 2024
2
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
BEGUMPET POLICE STATION, POLICE LINES, MOTILAL
NEHRU NAGAR, BEGUMPET POST, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA
STATE, PIN - 500016
5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION- DEHRADUN, NEAR FIRE
STATION, GANDHI ROAD, DEHRADUN POST, UTTARAKHAND
STATE, PIN - 248001
6 NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL (MHA PORTAL)
NATIONAL HIGHWAY-8 MAHIPALPUR POST, NEW DELHI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 110037
7 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
8 STATE OF TAMIL NADU
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU
STATE, PIN - 600009
9 STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU G
P O POST, KARNATAKA STATE, PIN - 560001
0 STATE OF TELANGANA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA, 5TH FLOOR, A
BLOCK, TELANGANA SECRETARIAT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT
POST, HYDERABAD, PIN - 500022
11
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY , HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF UTTARAKHAND, UTTARAKHAND SECRETARIAT,
SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN POST, UTTARAKHAND STATE, PIN
- 248001
2025:KER:4322
WP(C) NO. 46003 OF 2024
3
DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA
GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
SC SRI SUNIL SHANKAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:4322
WP(C) NO. 46003 OF 2024
4
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2025
The writ petition is filed to direct the 1 st respondent
bank to lift the debit freezing of the petitioner's bank
account bearing No.7777050000115790.
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 the requisitions 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, the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the disputed amount as per Exts.P2 to P5
requisitions is Rs.52,104/-. The said submission is
recorded.
2025:KER:4322
WP(C) NO. 46003 OF 2024
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 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
2025:KER:4322
WP(C) NO. 46003 OF 2024
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
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:4322
WP(C) NO. 46003 OF 2024
7. I am in complete agreement with the views in
Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T cases (supra). The above
principles squarely apply 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 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
2025:KER:4322
WP(C) NO. 46003 OF 2024
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
rmm21/1/2025
2025:KER:4322
WP(C) NO. 46003 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46003/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
WITH RESPECT TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE
PETITIONER WITH 1ST RESPONDENT BANK FOR
THE PERIOD 01/10/2024 TO 31/10/2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION
DATED 09/01/2024, RECEIVED BY THE
PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION
DATED 05/01/2024, RECEIVED BY THE
PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION
DATED 04/01/2024, RECEIVED BY THE
PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION
DATED 02/01/2024, RECEIVED BY THE
PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/12/2024
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED AS 2023 KHC
661 [SAJEER (DR.) -VS- RESERVE BANK OF
INDIA]
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
15/07/2024 PASSED IN W.P.
(C).NO.22834/2024 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
