Allowed

Nadhiya T. B. v. Union of India

Kerala HC1 Apr 2025WP(C)/9264/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed Federal Bank to confine account freeze to disputed amount pending police intimation. If police fail to report seizure under Section 102 CrPC within two months, bank must lift freeze. Petitioner's contentions reserved for future.

What did the court decide?

5th respondent directed to confine freeze to disputed amount and lift it if police fail to report seizure under Section 102 CrPC within two months.

Nadhiya T. B. Vs Union of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2025)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 9264 OF 2025 1

¶2

2025:KER:27543

¶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. 9264 OF 2025

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

NADHIYA T. B.
AGED 24 YEARS
D/O BASHEER T. M. .,THANIPEEDIKAYIL
HOUSE,THATTUNGAL, KOOLIMUTTAM P. O., KODUNGALLUR
THRISSUR., PIN - 680691

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.SANIYA C.V.
SRI.AASHI K. SHAJAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION MALAPPURAM, UP-HILL P. O., MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676505

¶14

3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶15

CID CRIME GANDHINAGAR, SARVODAYA NAGAR SOCIETY,
SECTOR 30, GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT., PIN - 382030

¶16

4 THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, RBI, BAKERY JUNCTION, NANDAVANAM, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695033

¶17

5 FEDERAL BANK MOONUPEEDIKA BRANCH, M. A. M. COMPLEX, MOONUPEEDIKA, KAIPAMANGALAM P. O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER., PIN - 680681

¶18

BY SRI MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SC

¶19

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

¶20

WP(C) NO. 9264 OF 2025 2

¶21

2025:KER:27543

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Dated this the 01^st day of April, 2025

¶24

The writ petition is filed to direct the 5^th respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.15170100302581.

¶25

The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 5^th respondent bank. The petitioner contends that the 5^th respondent has frozen the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to the requisitions from the police. The action of the 5^th respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.

¶26

Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent bank.

¶27

The learned counsel for the 5^th respondent bank submitted that, as per Ext.P1, the disputed amount is Rs.2,500/-. The said submission is recorded.

¶28

WP(C) NO. 9264 OF 2025 3

¶29

2025:KER:27543 5. In considering an identical matter, this

¶30

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

¶31

“ 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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.”

¶35

Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v.

¶36

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

¶37

WP(C) NO. 9264 OF 2025 4

¶38

2025:KER:27543 interpretation of Section 102 of the Code laid down by

¶39

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:

¶40

“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).

¶41

(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.

¶42

(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.

¶43

I am in complete agreement with the views in

¶44

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

¶45

WP(C) NO. 9264 OF 2025 5

¶46

2025:KER:27543 In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ

¶47

petition by passing the following directions:

¶48

(i). The 5^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 her account beyond the said limit;

¶49

(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;

¶50

(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;

¶51

(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;

¶52

(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

¶53

WP(C) NO. 9264 OF 2025 6

¶54

2025:KER:27543 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;

¶55

(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.

¶56

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶59

NAB

¶60

WP(C) NO. 9264 OF 2025 7

¶61

2025:KER:27543

¶62

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9264/2025

¶63

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶64

EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
03/05/2024 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Nadhiya T. B. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadhiya T. B. v. Union of India

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

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