Allowed

Anija E.P v. Canara Bank

Kerala HC3 Apr 2025WP(C)/5890/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that bank account freezes initiated by police requisition must be limited to the disputed amount. Directions were issued to banks and police regarding reporting seizures to Magistrates under Section 102 CrPC, otherwise lifts are mandatory.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Bank to lift the account freeze or confine it to the disputed amount if no intimation of compliance with Section 102 CrPC is received within two months.

Anija E.P Vs Canara Bank — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2025)

¶1

WP(C) No.5890 of 2025 1

¶2

2025:KER:28856

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶7

WP(C) NO. 5890 OF 2025

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

ANIJA E.P
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O ARUMUGHAN, EDIYATTIL PALLIAL HOUSE, PALLIYAL,
KAMUKKU, VP PURAM P.O, TRIPRANGODE, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676102

¶10

BY ADVS.
K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ
BIBIN MATHEW
P.M.MATHEW
AMARNATH R LAL
SANALDEV E.P.
SONYMON ANTONY
AJMAL V. KARIM

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1CANARA BANK
VALANCHERY BRANCH, V M ARCADE, BLOCK, KUTTIPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
PIN - 676552

¶13

2 BRANCH MANAGER

¶14

CANARA BANK, VALANCHERY BRANCH, V M ARCADE, BLOCK, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676552

¶15

3 THE NODAL OFFICER NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110037

¶16

4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶17

RANCHAKONDA CYBER POLICE STATON, RAMAKRISHNAPURAM POST,
NEAR MALKAJGIRI COURT COMPLEX, SHIVA NAGAR COLONY,
VAYUPURI, NEREDMET, SECUNDARABAD, TELANGANA- 500056

¶18

WP(C) No.5890 of 2025 2

¶19

2025:KER:28856

¶20

5DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
LAKDI POOL POLICE HEADQUARTERS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA,
PIN - 500004

¶21

BY ADVS.
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, M/S. MENON & PAI, ADVOCATES
K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)
JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)
KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)
RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)
AKHILA NAMBIAR(K/737/2021)

¶22

DSGI SRI DINESH
SC SRI GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C) No.5890 of 2025 3

¶25

2025:KER:28856

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2025

¶28

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

¶29

bank to lift the debit freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.0859101063065.

¶30

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 4^th respondent. The action of the 1^st respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition

¶31

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

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.4,00,000/-. The said submission is recorded.

¶33

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

¶34

WP(C) No.5890 of 2025 4

¶35

2025:KER:28856

¶36

“ 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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.”

¶40

Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v.

¶41

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

¶42

WP(C) No.5890 of 2025 5

¶43

2025:KER:28856 Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy [(1999)

¶44

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:

¶45

“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).

¶46

(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.

¶47

(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.”

¶48

I am in complete agreement with the views in

¶49

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

¶50

WP(C) No.5890 of 2025 6

¶51

2025:KER:28856 principles squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand.

¶52

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

¶53

(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 her account beyond the said limit;

¶54

(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;

¶55

(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;

¶56

(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 her contentions in this Writ Petition are left open and reserved to her, to impel in future;

¶57

(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

¶58

WP(C) No.5890 of 2025 7

¶59

2025:KER:28856

¶60

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;

¶61

(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.

¶62

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶63

Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶64

¶65

WP(C) No.5890 of 2025 8

¶66

2025:KER:28856

¶67

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5890/2025

¶68

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶69

Exhibit-P1

¶70

Exhibit-P2

¶71

TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION SENT BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT BANK DATED ALLEGING THE DISPUTED
AMOUNT ALONG WITH READABLE COPY

¶72

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
08.01.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE SECOND RESPONDENT

Anija E.P v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anija E.P v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S O H a I L S H a M S U D E E N Vs Kerala Water Authority

P.C. Shaji Vs Kerala Water Authority

New India Water Well Corporation Vs State of Kerala

M/S Muthoot Pappachan Chits (India) Private Limited Vs the State of Kerala

Hakeem Ottathingal Vs Idbi Bank

Prateesh P.V Vs State of Kerala