Allowed

Nh Fruits through Its Proprietor Muhammed Swalih T M v. Federal Bank

Kerala HC24 Mar 2025WP(C)/1615/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Kerala High Court directed the respondent bank to limit the freezing of the petitioner's account only to the frozen amount. The Court held that police must report seizure to the Magistrate within two months; failure requires the bank to lift the freeze.

What did the court decide?

The bank to confine freezing to the requisition amount; the police to inform the bank on reporting seizure to the Magistrate within two months, else the freeze must be lifted.

Nh Fruits through Its Proprietor Muhammed Swalih T M Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2025)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025

¶2

¶3

2025:KER:25185

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶7

MONDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

NH FRUITS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MUHAMMED SWALIH T M AGED 29 YEARS S/O:MUHAMMEDALI T, THRIKKULAM HOUSE, POTHUKKALLU,BHOODANAM COLONY PO, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 679334

¶11

BY ADV SADIQALI. M

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 FEDERAL BANK

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, EDAKKARA BRANCH 1ST FLOOR, JOHN'S TOWER, OOTY ROAD, OPP. ALI SQUARE, EDAKKARA, KERALA., PIN - 679331

¶15

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶16

DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY SOOCHNA PARISAR POLICE STATION , 16 PARK ROAD,LUCKNOW., PIN - 226001

¶17

*3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶18

NEB POLICE STATION, SUBHASH NAGAR, ANAND VIHAR, DAUDPUR, ALWAR, RAJASTHAN, 301001 IS IMPLEADED AS THE ADDL. 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 24.03.25 IN IA NO.1/2025.

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SC SRI MOHAN JACOB GEORGE

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025

2025:KER:25185

C.S.DIAS, J.

WP(C) No. 1615 OF 2025

¶27

----------------------------------------Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2025

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The writ petition is filed to direct the 1^st

¶30

respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.15570200003734.

¶31

The petitioner’s case is that, it is the holder of the above bank account with the 1^st respondent bank. The said account has been debit freezed by the 1^st respondent pursuant to the requisition received from the 3^rd respondent. The action of the 1^st respondent is arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

¶32

Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶33

The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.3,18,000/-. The said submission is recorded.

¶34

In considering an identical matter, this Court in

¶35

WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025

¶36

¶37

2025:KER:25185

¶38

Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826] held as follows:

¶39

“ 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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.”

¶43

6. Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v.

¶44

Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768],

¶45

WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025

¶46

¶47

2025:KER:25185 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:

¶48

“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).

¶49

(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

¶50

WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025

¶51

¶52

2025:KER:25185

¶53

within one month ofreceipt of a copy of the judgment, the bank shall lift the debit freeze imposed on the petitioner's account.

¶54

(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.

¶55

I am in complete agreement with the views

¶56

in Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T cases (supra). The above principles squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand.

¶57

In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ petition by passing the following directions:

¶58

(i). The 1^st 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;

¶59

(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;

¶60

WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025

¶61

¶62

2025:KER:25185

¶63

(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;

¶64

(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;

¶65

(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;

¶66

WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025

¶67

¶68

2025:KER:25185

¶69

(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.

¶70

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rkc/24.03.25

WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025

¶75

¶76

2025:KER:25185

¶77

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1615/2025

¶78

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶79

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08-012025 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER DATED 24-07-2023

Nh Fruits through Its Proprietor Muhammed Swalih T M v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nh Fruits through Its Proprietor Muhammed Swalih T M v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anitha Krishnakumar Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

Marysadan Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

Neji Ethiyil Musthafa Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

Abdul Basith Mk Vs Union of India

N.Prakash Vs Advocate K.M.Shajahan

Sreejith P Vs Union of India