Kerala High Court
Shamil Muhammed E.K vs Hdfc Bank Ltd Represented By Branch ... on 24 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 38283 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:5742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 4TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 38283 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
SHAMIL MUHAMMED E.K
AGED 27 YEARS
ROSE VILLA, PURAKKATTIRI, THALAKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE,
KERALA, PIN - 673317
BY ADVS.
NISHAN AHAMMED MULLAVEETTIL
FADHI RAHMAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 HDFC BANK LTD REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER
GROUND FLOOR, SOCIETY BUILDING, YMCA CROSS RD,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673001
2 POLICE INSPECTOR
KATNI KOTWALI POLICE STATION, MADHYA PRADESH, PIN -
483501
3 OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
KOLAGHAT POLICE STATION, PURBA MEDINIPUR, WEST
BENGAL, PIN - 721171
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 38283 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:5742
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 38283 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th 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.50100485886767.
2. The petitioner's case is that, he is the holder of
the above bank account with the 1st respondent bank. The
said account has been debit freezed by the 1 st respondent
pursuant to the requisition received from the respondents
2 and 3. The action of the 1 st respondent is arbitrary.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent
submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.1/- lakh. The said
submission is recorded.
5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in
WP(C) NO. 38283 OF 2024
2025:KER:5742
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],
WP(C) NO. 38283 OF 2024
2025:KER:5742
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
WP(C) NO. 38283 OF 2024
2025:KER:5742
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 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;
WP(C) NO. 38283 OF 2024
2025:KER:5742
(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
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;
WP(C) NO. 38283 OF 2024
2025:KER:5742
(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
rkc/24.01.25
WP(C) NO. 38283 OF 2024
2025:KER:5742
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38283/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL RECEIVED BY THE
PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
21.03.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.10.2024
RECEIVED FROM THE BANK BRANCH MANAGER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE
PETITIONER WHICH IS ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BANK
Exhibit P4 INCOME TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
DATED 12.10.2024
