Kerala High Court
Anu Noufal vs Canara Bank on 11 March, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 5513 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:20647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 5513 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
ANU NOUFAL
AGED 42 YEARS
PAYEDATH HOUSE, UNNIKULAM, EKAROOL P.O, , KOZHIKODE,
KERALA,, PIN - 673574
BY ADVS.
MUHAMMAD SABITH
NAJAH EBRAHIM V.P.
HANANA FATHIMA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 CANARA BANK
BUILDIND NO.B.P.IV/406-A, MAIN ROAD
BALUSSERY,KOZHIKODE, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGER, PIN - 673612
2 CYBER CRIME CELL, UTTAR PRADESH
SEC-06 NOIDA, GAUTAN BUDDGA NAGAR, UUTTAR PRADESH,
INDIA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PIN -
201301
BY ADVS.
GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M.
K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)
JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)
KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)
RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)
AKHILA NAMBIAR(K/737/2021)
SC SRI M GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 5513 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:20647
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.5513 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March, 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.2559101006135.
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 2 nd
respondent. 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 for the 1 st respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent
submitted that as per Ext.P1 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]
WP(C) NO. 5513 OF 2025
2025:KER:20647
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. 5513 OF 2025
2025:KER:20647
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 account.
WP(C) NO. 5513 OF 2025
2025:KER:20647
(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. 5513 OF 2025
2025:KER:20647
(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 with
WP(C) NO. 5513 OF 2025
2025:KER:20647
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/11.03.25
WP(C) NO. 5513 OF 2025
2025:KER:20647
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5513/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
BRANCH HEAD, CANARA BANK, BALUSSERY BRANCH
ISSUED ON 16/10/2024
