Sainudheen Muhammed vs The Grievance Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 5492 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sainudheen Muhammed vs The Grievance Officer on 25 March, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                      2025:KER:25811
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

     TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                       WP(C) NO. 6148 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

          SAINUDHEEN MUHAMMED
          AGED 50 YEARS
          S/O. HAMSA, RESIDING AT VADAKKAYIL HOUSE, KALLOOR P.O.,
          VADAKKEKKAD, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 679562


          BY ADVS.
          SYED NIHAL P.M.
          ABDULLA FUHAD K.
          MUHAMMED SHIBIL VADAKKENGARA




RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE GRIEVANCE OFFICER
          NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL - NCCRP,
          KERALA REGION, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
          GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010

    2     UNION OF INDIA
          MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY, PIN - 110001

    3     FEDERAL BANK
          VADAKKEKKAD BRANCH, GROUND FLOOR, OM BROTHERS BUILDING,
          ALTHARA - PONNANI RD, OPP. SHINE DENTAL CLINIC,
          NALAMKALLU, VADAKKEKAD, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
          MANAGER, PIN - 679562

    4     CENTRAL REGION CYBER POLICE STATION
          FIRST FLOOR, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX RD, OPPOSITE ICICI
          BANK, G BLOCK BKC, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST,
          MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE
          OFFICER, PIN - 400051
 WP(C) No.6148 of 2025             2

                                                    2025:KER:25811


             DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA
             GP SRI B S SYAMANTHAK
             SC SRI MOHAN JACB GEORGE


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.6148 of 2025             3

                                                     2025:KER:25811
                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of March, 2025

The writ petition is filed to direct the 3rd respondent

bank to lift the debit freezing of the petitioner's bank

account bearing No.18894100012398.

2. The petitioner is the holder of the above bank

account with the 3rd respondent bank. The petitioner

contends that the 3rd respondent bank has frozen the

petitioner's bank account pursuant to a requisition received

from the 4th respondent. The action of the 3rd respondent is

illegal and arbitrary.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned

counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd

respondent submitted that a lien has been marked for

Rs.1,00,000/- in the petitioner's bank account. 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]

2025:KER:25811 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

Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and the interpretation of

2025:KER:25811 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:25811

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 3rd 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 him, to impel in future;

(v) The jurisdictional police officers shall inform the Bank whether the seizure of the bank account has

2025:KER:25811 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 AJ/26.03.2025

2025:KER:25811 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6148/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER'S SAVINGS ACCOUNT, HAVING ACCOUNT NO. 18894100012398 MAINTAINED IN FEDERAL BANK, VADAKKEKKAD BRANCH ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE COMMUNICATION GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER REGARDING THE ALLEGED CYBER- CRIME DATED 31.01.2025