Kerala High Court
Thrikkalangode Service Co-Operative … vs The Union Of India on 27 March, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 6111 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:27363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 6111 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
THRIKKALANGODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
NO.F 1548, THRIKKALANGODE PO,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UMMU SALMA
P, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. MUHAMMED, VALIYAPARAMBIL(H),
KARAKKUNNU PO,MALAPPURAM (BANK ACCOUNT NO. 02220
5001 789 OF ICICI BANK, MANJERI BRANCH), PIN -
676123
BY ADV K.RAKESH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110001
2 THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, HEAD OFFICE, MUMBAI,
MAHARASTRA, PIN - 400029
3 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CYBER CRIME CELL, UTTAR PRADESH POLICE, OFFICE OF
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CENTRAL NOIDA,
COMMISSIONERATE DISTRICT, GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR, UTTAR
PRADESH. E-MAIL: [email protected], PIN -
203201
5 THE POLICE INSPECTOR
CEN POLICE STATION NORTH EAST DIVISION, BANGALURU
CITY, E-MAIL: [email protected], PIN -
WP(C) NO. 6111 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:27363
560001
6 THE POLICE INSPECTOR
SOUTH CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, KARNATAKA BANGALORE
CITY, 7THPHARASE J P NAGARA E-MAIL:
[email protected], PIN - 560078
7 DEPUTY SUPERINTEND OF POLICE
CYBER POLICE STATION, KOTA CITY, RAJASTHAN, E-MAIL:
[email protected], PIN - 324001
8 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA CITY, NTR
COMMISSIONERATE, ANDHRA PRADESH, E-MAIL:
[email protected], PIN - 520002
9 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CYBER POLICE STATION, SAMARTH NAGAR, JALNA,
MAHARASHTRA. E-MAIL:
[email protected], PIN - 431213
0 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PIMPRI- CHINCHWAD POLICE COMMISSIONARATESANGVI, NAVI
SANGVI-301, SHITOLE EMPIRE BLDG, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-
E- MAIL; PASANGVI.PCPC[email protected], PIN - 411061
11 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
STATE CYBER CRIME CELL, GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT STREET,
E-MAIL: [email protected] E-MAIL:
[email protected], PIN - 382016
12 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, AHMEDABAD CITY, GUJARAT
E-MAIL: [email protected], PIN -
380004
13 THE ICICI BANK
SHIFA COMPLEX, URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,
COURT RD, NEAR MANJERI, KARUVAMBRAM, MANJERI,
KERALA, PIN - 676121
BY ADVS.
SHAHIER SINGH M.
SHARAN SHAHIER(K/1202/2010)
OTHER PRESENT:
WP(C) NO. 6111 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:27363
DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 6111 OF 2025
4
2025:KER:27363
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 6111 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the 13 th
respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank
account bearing No.022205001789.
2. The petitioner’s case is that, it is the holder of
the above bank account with the 13 th respondent bank. The
said account has been debit freezed by the 13 th
respondent pursuant to the requisitions received from the
Police. The action of the 13th respondent is arbitrary.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 13 th
respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the 13th respondent
submitted that the total disputed amount is
Rs.1,33,28,297/-. The above submission is recorded.
5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in
WP(C) NO. 6111 OF 2025
5
2025:KER:27363
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. 6111 OF 2025
6
2025:KER:27363
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. 6111 OF 2025
72025:KER:27363
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 13th 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 it’s 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. 6111 OF 2025
8
2025:KER:27363
(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
it’s contentions in this Writ Petition are left open
and reserved to the petitioner, 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. 6111 OF 2025
9
2025:KER:27363
(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/27.03.25
WP(C) NO. 6111 OF 2025
10
2025:KER:27363
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6111/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MINI STATEMENT OF THE
ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED, 3-10-2023
IN W.P.(C)NO.30088/2023 OF THIS HON’BLE
COURT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED,
26-3-2024 IN W.P.(C)NO.11312/2024 OF THIS
HON’BLE COURT
[ad_1]
Source link