Allus Cardamom Point Vs Union of India

¶1

WP(C) NO. 6811 OF 2025 1

¶2

2025:KER:27549

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶7

WP(C) NO. 6811 OF 2025

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

ALLUS CARDAMOM POINT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR MR.SANTHOSH
JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH, PULIMOOTTIL,
THANKAMANY KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI, KERALA., PIN - 685515

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.T.S.SARATH
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.SAMEER M NAIR
SRI.SABIKH MOHAMMED V.S
SMT.SAILAKSHMI MENON
SMT.AASHI K. SHAJAN
SMT.MINZA FATHIMA SALIM M.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 UNION OF INDIA

¶13

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY. [email protected],
PIN - 110001

¶14

2 NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS NODAL CYBER CELL OFFICER, OFFICE
OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CID,
4TH FLOOR, POLICE BHAVAN, SECTOR – 18, GANDHINAGAR,
GUJARAT. [email protected], PIN - 382018

¶16

3 INDIAN CYBERCRIME COORDINATION CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO, 5TH FLOOR, NDCC-II BUILDING, JAI SINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI. [email protected], PIN - 110001

¶17

WP(C) NO. 6811 OF 2025 2

¶18

2025:KER:27549

¶19

4 STATE OF GUJARAT REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, 5TH FLOOR, BLOCK NO. 1, SARDAR BHAVAN SACHIVALAYA, GANDHINAGAR,GUJURAT. [email protected], PIN - 382010

¶20

5 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GUJARAT STATE POLICE BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR SECTOR 18, GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT. [email protected], PIN - 382021

¶21

6STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE, GANDHINAGAR RANGE, NEAR DSP
OFFICE, SECTOR – 27, GUJARAT. CYBER-GNR-
[email protected], PIN - 382027

¶22

7THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, RBI,
BAKERY JUNCTION, NANDAVANAM, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA.
[email protected], PIN - 695033

¶23

8UNION BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, K.K.P. TOWERS,
CHERUTHONI P.O.,IDUKKI, KERALA.
[email protected], PIN - 685602

¶24

BY ADVS. SRI.ASP.KURUP
SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
SRI.SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
SRI.B.SREEDEVI(K/169/2024)
SMT.ATHIRA VIJAYAN(K/199/2024)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(C) NO. 6811 OF 2025 3

¶27

2025:KER:27549

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Dated this the 01^st day of April, 2025

¶30

The writ petition is filed to direct the 8^th respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.346705010050135.

¶31

The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 8^th respondent bank. The petitioner contends that the 8^th respondent has frozen the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to the requisitions from the police. The action of the 8^th respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.

¶32

Heard; the learned counsel appearing for

¶33

the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 8^th respondent.

¶34

The learned counsel for the 8^th respondent submitted that, the total disputed amount is Rs.4,00,000/-. The said submission is recorded.

¶35

WP(C) NO. 6811 OF 2025 4

¶36

2025:KER:27549 5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826] held as follows:

¶37

“ 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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.”

¶41

Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v.

¶42

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

¶43

WP(C) NO. 6811 OF 2025 5

¶44

2025:KER:27549 Section 102 of the Code laid down by the Hon'ble

¶45

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:

¶46

“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 Subsection (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).

¶47

(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 of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the bank shall lift the debit freeze imposed on the petitioner's account.

¶48

(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.

¶49

I am in complete agreement with the views in

¶50

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

¶51

WP(C) NO. 6811 OF 2025 6

¶52

2025:KER:27549 In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ petition

¶53

by passing the following directions:

¶54

(i). The 8^th 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 their account beyond the said limit;

¶55

(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;

¶56

(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;

¶57

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

¶58

(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

¶59

WP(C) NO. 6811 OF 2025 7

¶60

2025:KER:27549 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;

¶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/-

¶64

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶65

NAB

¶66

WP(C) NO. 6811 OF 2025 8

¶67

2025:KER:27549

¶68

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6811/2025

¶69

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶70

EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE
EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13-02-2025
RECEIVED FROM THE 8TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL THAT WAS SEND BY
THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF STATEMENT
DETAILS

¶71

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶72

EXHIBIT R8AA TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.02.2025
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE BANK
EXHIBIT R8BA TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.02.2025
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE BANK

Allus Cardamom Point v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Allus Cardamom Point v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subair. C Vs Au Small Finance Bank

Steaphen Antony Venansious Vs Child Welfare Committee Kottayam

Merchant Navy Club Represented by Its Vice Presindent- Capt Ep Radhakrishnan Vs Kerala Maritime Board Represented by Its Chief Executive Officer

Vineesh T Vs the Station House Officer Panangad & Another

Jackson Mathew Vs the Regional Fire Officer

Aavri Travels LLP Vs the Manager, South Indian Bank