Kerala High Court
Muhammed Faiz O vs The Manager, Indusind Bank on 7 March, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 3927 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:19519
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3927 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED FAIZ O
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O ZUBAIR, OYALOT, CHENNAMANGALLUR, MUKKAM,
THEZHECODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673602
BY ADV ABDUL HADI M.P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE MANAGER, INDUSIND BANK,
MANKAVU BRANCH, GROUND FLOOR, MUNEER ZAVODILA
SQUARE, MANKAVE, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673007
2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VANASTHALIPURAM POLICE STATION, VANASTHALIPURAM
MAIN RD, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, HASTINA PURAM COLONY,
NGO COLONY, VANASTHALIPURAM, SAHEBNAGAR_KALAN,
TELANGANA EMAIL- [email protected], PIN
- 500070
BY ADVS.
G.HARIHARAN
PRAVEEN.H.(K/1441/2002)
K.S.SMITHA(K/106/2012)
B.R.SINDU(K/632/2002.)
V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR(K/000741/2017)
AFNA V.P.(K/0128/2024)
REMYA MURALI(K/154/2013)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3927 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:19519
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.3927 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the 1st
respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's
bank account bearing No.100188777791.
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 1st respondent
pursuant to the requisition received from the 2 nd
respondent. The action of the 1st respondent is arbitrary.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent
submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.3,000/-. 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]
WP(C) NO. 3927 OF 2025
2025:KER:19519
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)
WP(C) NO. 3927 OF 2025
2025:KER:19519
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 debit freeze imposed on the petitioner's
WP(C) NO. 3927 OF 2025
2025:KER:19519
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. 3927 OF 2025
2025:KER:19519
(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;
(vi) In order to enable the Police to comply
WP(C) NO. 3927 OF 2025
2025:KER:19519
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/07.03.25
WP(C) NO. 3927 OF 2025
2025:KER:19519
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3927/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.10.2024
SEND BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE
PETITIONER
NOTICE THROUGH Gmail - NOTICE OF WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)
EMAIL NO. 3927 OF 2025 ON THE FILES OF
HONOURABLE HGIH COURT OF KERALA AT
ERNAKULAM
