Muhammed Anas P Vs Airtel Payments Bank — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Muhammed Anas P Vs Airtel Payments Bank — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: the debit freeze on account No.7012461261 to be confined forthwith to the amount mentioned in the police order/requisition (disputed amount recorded as Rs.1,000/-); Police Authorities to inform the Bank whether and for how long the freeze is to continue, and whether the seizure has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate; Bank to continue or withdraw the freeze per that intimation; if no intimation of compliance (or proposed compliance) with Section 102 Cr.P.C. reaches the Bank within two months, the Bank shall lift the debit freeze or remove the lien; failing any intimation, the petitioner may approach the Court again with contentions left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the 1st respondent bank (Airtel Payments Bank) should lift the debit freezing of the petitioner's bank account bearing No.7012461261, frozen pursuant to a requisition received from the 2nd respondent (Cyber Crime Police Station, Deoria, Uttar Pradesh). +1 more

Court's answer

Direction (iv): If no information or intimation is received by the Bank in terms of direction (ii), the petitioner will be at full liberty to approach the Court again, with all his contentions in the Writ Petition left open and reserved.

Ratio / Principle

The Court is in complete agreement with the views in Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T (supra), and holds that the principles laid down therein squarely apply to the facts of the present case.

Key takeaways

Direction (i): The 1st 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, to be done forthwith so as to enable the petitioner to transact beyond the said limit.ratio¶46
Direction (ii): The Police Authorities are directed to inform the Bank whether freezing of the petitioner's account will be required to be continued in the confined manner and, if so, for what further time.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP(C) No. 3711 of 2025, High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam), decided 25.03.2025 by Justice C.S. Dias (2025:KER:25982). Muhammed Anas P sought lifting of the debit freeze placed by Airtel Payments Bank on his account No. 7012461261 at the instance of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Deoria, Uttar Pradesh; counsel for the bank recorded the disputed amount as Rs. 1,000/-. Expressly agreeing with and following Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826] and Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768] - the latter resting on S. 102 CrPC (now S. 106 BNSS 2023) and the Supreme Court's interpretation in Tapas D Neody/Teesta Atul Setalvad/Shento Varghese - the Court disposed of the petition directing: (i) the freeze be confined forthwith to the amount named in the police requisition; (ii) police to intimate whether, and for how long, the freeze must continue; (iii) the Bank to continue or withdraw the freeze per that intimation; (iv) absent intimation, the petitioner may approach the Court afresh with contentions reserved; (v) police to disclose whether the seizure was reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate, failing intimation of compliance with S. 102 CrPC within two months the Bank shall lift the debit freeze/remove the lien; and (vi) a copy of the judgment to be served on the jurisdictional officer with proof of service retained.

2025:KER:25982

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. 3711 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

MUHAMMED ANAS P
AGED 25 YEARS

C/O HAMEED P PERINKADAKKATT HOUSE, PAINGOTTUR CALICUT
UNIVERSITY, CHELEMBRA CALICUT UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 673635

BY ADVS.
SADIQALI. M
PRAGEENA A.P.
MOHAMED SHAFI M.
MUHAMMAD SABIK

RESPONDENTS:

1 AIRTEL PAYMENTS BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PLOT NO. 16, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE IV, GURUGRAM, HARYANA, PIN - 122015

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, POLICE LINE, DEORIA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA. [email protected], PIN - 274001

BY ADV Tarin T R

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.3711 of 2025 2

2025:KER:25982

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25^th day of March, 2025

The writ petition is filed to direct the 1^st respondent

bank to lift the debit freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.7012461261.

The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 1^st respondent bank. The petitioner contends that the 1^st respondent bank has frozen the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to a requisition received from the 2^nd respondent. The action of the 1^st respondent is illegal and arbitrary.

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

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

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

WP(C) No.3711 of 2025 3

2025:KER:25982

“ 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.”

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 Section 102 of the Code laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

WP(C) No.3711 of 2025 4

2025:KER:25982 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.”

I am in complete agreement with the views in

Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T cases (supra). The above

WP(C) No.3711 of 2025 5

2025:KER:25982

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 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 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 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

WP(C) No.3711 of 2025 6

2025:KER:25982

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

WP(C) No.3711 of 2025 7

2025:KER:25982

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3711/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1

A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE
PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21/01/2025