Court allowed the petition relying on Dr. Sajeer. Directed bank to limit freeze to police-requisitioned amount within eight months, reducing account lock for transactions beyond that limit.
Bank directed to limit freeze to police requisition amount; police to inform within eight months whether continuation required.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 846 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
DEVIKA BIPIN, AGED 36 YEARS WIFE OF. BIPIN, 42 W, HOUSE NO: 64/5 DEVANATHAM, NADUVATTOM KARAYOOR, KOTTAPPADI (PO), POOKKODE VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR (DIST)- 680101
V.S.MANSOOR AKHIL BINOY
RESPONDENTS:
SRI.SADCHITH KURUP – SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 846 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
It is without doubt that the issues involved in this case have already been answered by this Court in Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr. [2024 (1) KLT 826].
In the afore circumstances and since the learned counsel for the parties are completely ad idem as above, I allow this writ petition in terms of the afore judgment in the following manner:
(a) The respondent - Bank, is directed to confine the order of freeze against the account of the petitioner, only to the extent of the amount mentioned in the order/requisition issued to them by the Police Authorities. This shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioner to deal with her account, and transact therein, beyond that limit.
(b) The respondent – Police Authorities concerned are hereby directed to inform the Bank as to whether the freezing of the account of the petitioner in this Writ Petition 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 Bank receiving the afore information/ intimation from the Police Authorities, they will adhere to the same and
WP(C) NO. 846 OF 2024
3
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 the Bank in terms of direction (b) above, petitioner will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all contentions in this Writ Petition are left open and reserved to her, to be impelled in future.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 846 OF 2024
4
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 846/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF PASSBOOK ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF ACCOUNT NO: 447002010005341 Exhibit P2 A COMPUTER COPY OF COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FROM 2ND RESPONDENT DTD: NIL Exhibit P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER OF INTIMATION DTD: 6/01/2024 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER REGARDING THE FREEZING OF HER ACCOUNT
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bank should be directed to confine the account freeze only to the extent of the amount mentioned in the police requisition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr. [2024 (1) KLT 826]Followed¶18
DEVIKA BIPIN
MANSOOR AKHIL BINOY
THE BANK MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA GURUVAYOOR BRANCH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION HYDERABAD
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
