Kerala High Court
Sangeeth Chandran vs National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal on 29 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:8083
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 9TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 46030 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SANGEETH CHANDRAN
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O GEETHA K.M, CIVIL ENGINEER,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KUMARASADANAM HOUSE, SREEKARYAM,
TRIVANDRUM-695 017 HAVING HIS PERMANENT ADDRESS AT
SRUTHI HOUSE, KARICHAL, PAIPPAD P.O, HARIPPAD,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690514
BY ADVS.
PRAVEEN K.S.
THEJALAKSHMI R.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL
REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY-8, MAHIPALPUR,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110037
2 THE NODAL OFFICER OF KERALA STATE
NATIONAL CYBERCRIME REPORTING PORTAL MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW-DELHI, PIN - 110037
3 UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY IT'S UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF
HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
4 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
LAW AND ORDER, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
5 GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, FRAUD RISK MANAGEMENT T.B ROAD,
MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
WP(C) NO. 46030 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:8083
6 BRANCH MANAGER
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, SASTHAMANGALM BRANCH,
TC.NO.29/868(1), GROUND FLOOR, WARD NO.29, SITA TOWER,
AALTHARA JUNCTION, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695010
7 INSPECTOR
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, SALEM CITY, SANKARI RD,
LINEMEDU, GUGAI, SALEM, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 636006
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
Sunil Shankar A
VIDYA GANGADHARAN(K/000424/2020)
DEVAYANI NAIR T.H.(K/1531/2019)
SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P. TO DGP AND ADDL. P.P. ()
DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 46030 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:8083
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2025
The writ petition is filed to direct the 6th respondent
bank to lift the debit freezing of the petitioner's bank account
bearing No.0503053000009915.
2. The petitioner is the holder of the above bank
account with the 6th respondent bank. The petitioner contends
that the 6th respondent bank has frozen the petitioner's bank
account pursuant to a requisition received from the 7th
respondent. The action of the 6th respondent is illegal and
arbitrary.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the learned DSGI, the learned Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents 4 and 7 and the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents 5 and 6.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents
5 and 6 submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.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:
2025:KER:8083
" 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 of Section 102
2025:KER:8083
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
2025:KER:8083
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 6th 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
his, 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
2025:KER:8083
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
AJ
2025:KER:8083
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46030/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF EMAIL
COMMUNICATION DATED 11-02-2024 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 07-06-2023
IN WPC NO.18459 OF 2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 21-08-2023
IN WPC NO.25093 OF 2023
