Nikhil C.S Vs the Grievance Officer — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Nikhil C.S Vs the Grievance Officer — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: (i) 3rd respondent Bank to confine the freezing to the amount in the police order/requisition forthwith; (ii)-(iii) Police Authorities to inform the Bank whether and for how long the freeze is to continue, and the Bank to act on that intimation; (iv) petitioner at liberty to approach the Court again if no intimation is received, contentions left open; (v) jurisdictional police to inform the Bank whether the seizure was reported to the Magistrate, failing intimation of Section 102 Cr.P.C. compliance within two months the Bank to lift the debit freeze or remove the lien; (vi) Bank and petitioner to serve a copy of the judgment on the jurisdictional officer with proof of service.

Issue for consideration

Whether the debit freezing (and lien) imposed on the petitioner's bank account No.10020100514161 with the 3rd respondent bank pursuant to a requisition from the 4th respondent is illegal and arbitrary, and whether the freeze should be lifted or confined.

Court's answer

The Court expressed complete agreement with the views in Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T (supra) and held that the principles laid down in those cases squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand.

Ratio / Principle

Direction (i): The 3rd respondent Bank is directed to confine the freezing order on the petitioner's bank account only to the extent of the amount mentioned in the order/requisition issued by the Police Authorities, forthwith, so as to enable the petitioner to transact beyond that limit.

Key takeaways

Directions (ii)-(iv): The Police Authorities are to inform the Bank whether the freezing must continue and, if so, for how long; the Bank is to adhere to that intimation and continue or withdraw the freeze accordingly; if no information or intimation is received, the petitioner is at full liberty to approach the Court again, with all his contentions left open and reserved.ratio¶55
Direction (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 for reporting; if no intimation of compliance or 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 the judgment, the Bank shall lift the debit freeze or remove the lien, as the case may be, on the petitioner's account.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Kerala High Court (C.S. Dias, J.), WP(C) No.9205 of 2025, order dated 03.04.2025 (neutral citation 2025:KER:28860): Nikhil C.S., whose account No.10020100514161 with the Federal Bank, Angamaly Branch was debit-frozen/lien-marked (Rs.50,000/-) at the instance of the Cyber Nodal Officer, Maharashtra in connection with an alleged cyber-crime, sought lifting of the freeze. 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] (which considered S.102 Cr.P.C., now S.106 BNSS 2023, and Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad and Shento Varghese), the Court disposed of the petition with directions: the Bank to confine the freeze to the amount in the police order/requisition forthwith; the Police to intimate whether and for how long the freeze is to continue; and if no intimation of compliance with Section 102 Cr.P.C. (reporting the seizure to the Magistrate) is given within two months, the Bank to lift the debit freeze or remove the lien. Petitioner free to approach the Court again; contentions left open.

2025:KER:28860

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

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

WP(C) NO. 9205 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

NIKHIL C.S
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. SASIKUMAR, RESIDING AT CHEROTTUKULAM,
KUMARAMPUTHUR, CHANGILERI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD,
KERALA, PIN - 678762

BY ADVS.
SYED NIHAL P.M.
ABDULLA FUHAD K.
MUHAMMED SHIBIL VADAKKENGARA

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE GRIEVANCE OFFICER NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL - NCCRP, KERALA REGION, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010

2 UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY, PIN - 110001

3 THE FEDERAL BANK ANGAMALY BRANCH, TB ROAD, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, ANGAMALY, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 683572

4CYBER NODAL OFFICER MAHARASHTRA
WORLD TRADE CENTRE, CENTRE -I, BUILDING 32ND FLOOR,
CUFFEE PARADE, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PIN - 400005

WP(C) No.9205 of 2025 2

2025:KER:28860

OTHER PRESENT:

DSGI SRI DINESH GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE SC SRI MOHAN JACOB GEORGE

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

WP(C) No.9205 of 2025 3

2025:KER:28860

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2025

The writ petition is filed to direct the 3^rd respondent

bank to lift the debit freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.10020100514161.

The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 3^rd respondent bank. The petitioner contends that the 3^rd 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

Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent submitted that a lien has been marked on the petitioner's bank account for Rs.50,000/-. Similarly, the petitioner's bank account is credit freezed. The said submission is recorded.

WP(C) No.9205 of 2025 4

2025:KER:28860

In considering an identical matter, this Court in

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

“ 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

WP(C) No.9205 of 2025 5

2025:KER:28860

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:

“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

WP(C) No.9205 of 2025 6

2025:KER:28860

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

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 3^rd 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;

WP(C) No.9205 of 2025 7

2025:KER:28860

(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;

(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

WP(C) No.9205 of 2025 8

2025:KER:28860

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9205/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1

Exhibit P2

A TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE
PETITIONER’S SAVINGS ACCOUNT, HAVING ACCOUNT
NO. 10020100514161 MAINTAINED IN THE FEDERAL
BANK ANGAMALY BRANCH. ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD OF 20.12.2024 TO
30.12.2024

A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
COMMUNICATION GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER REGARDING THE ALLEGED CYBER-
CRIME DATED 30.01.2025