Disposed

Shihab Pk v. Grievance Officer

Kerala HC4 Apr 2025WP(C)/26035/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank account frozen on police requisition in a cybercrime matter. Court applied Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T: freeze confined to disputed amount; police to report whether seizure was reported to Magistrate within two months, failing which debit freeze must be lifted.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued: freeze confined to disputed amount (Rs.20,000); police to inform bank on continuation and S.102 reporting; freeze/lien to be lifted if no intimation within two months.

Shihab Pk Vs Grievance Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2025)

¶1

2025:KER:29328

¶2

W.P.(C.) No.26035 OF 2024

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶7

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

WP(C) NO. 26035 OF 2024

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

SHIHAB PK
AGED 36 YEARS

¶11

S/O KUNHIMON POKKAKKILLATH, CHANTHAPADI, VALAPAD
THRISSUR, PIN - 680567

¶12

BY ADVS.
D.FEROZE
C.J.JIYAS
T.S.KRISHNENDU
JANET VARGHESE
ADARSH A.

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1GRIEVANCE OFFICER
NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL, KERALA
REGION, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL
OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶15

2FEDERAL BANK
TRIPRAYAR BRANCH GROUND FLOOR, KAKKANAT COMPLEX
KODUNGALLUR ROAD, TRIPRAYAR, NEAR Y MALL, NATTIKA,
THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN -
680566

¶16

ADDL R3INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION, SOUTH DIVISION,

¶17

W.P.(C.) No.26035 OF 2024

¶18

2025:KER:29328

¶19

¶20

BENGALURU CITY, 9TH CROSS ROAD, K R LAYOUT, J P
NAGAR, 6TH PHASE, BENGALURU

¶21

(IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2025 IN
I.A. NO.2/2025)

¶22

GP - SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W.P.(C.) No.26035 OF 2024

¶25

¶26

2025:KER:29328

¶27

C.S.DIAS, J

¶28

W.P.(C.) No. 26035 of 2024

¶29

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2025

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The writ petition is filed to direct the 2^nd respondent

¶32

bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.99980115825734.

¶33

The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 2^nd respondent bank. The petitioner contends that the 2^nd respondent has frozen the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to the requisition received from the additional 3^rd respondent. The action of the 2^nd respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.

¶34

Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent bank.

¶35

W.P.(C.) No.26035 OF 2024

¶36

2025:KER:29328

¶37

¶38

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent

¶39

submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.20,000/-. The said submission is recorded.

¶40

In considering an identical matter, this Court in Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826] held as follows:

¶41

“ 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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(C.) No.26035 OF 2024

¶46

¶47

2025:KER:29328

¶48

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.”

¶49

Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v.

¶50

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 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:

¶51

“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

¶52

2025:KER:29328

¶53

W.P.(C.) No.26035 OF 2024

¶54

¶55

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).

¶56

(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.

¶57

(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.

¶58

I am in complete agreement with the views in

¶59

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:

¶60

(i) The 2^nd respondent Bank is directed to confine the freezing order of the petitioner's bank account only

¶61

2025:KER:29328

¶62

W.P.(C.) No.26035 OF 2024

¶63

¶64

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;

¶65

(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;

¶66

(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;

¶67

(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;

¶68

(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;

¶69

2025:KER:29328

¶70

W.P.(C.) No.26035 OF 2024

¶71

¶72

(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.

¶73

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

SCB.04.04.25

JUDGE

2025:KER:29328

¶79

W.P.(C.) No.26035 OF 2024

¶80

¶81

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26035/2024

¶82

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶83

Exhibit P1

¶84

A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED
REPRESENTATION DATED 28.06.2023,
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT

Shihab Pk v. Grievance Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shihab Pk v. Grievance Officer

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

Alamsha Vs the Station House Officer

Nikhil C.S Vs the Grievance Officer

Anija E.P Vs Canara Bank

Abdulla M. K. Vs State of Kerala

Emy K Kurian Vs State of Kerala

Dean Roy N Vs Union of India