Disposed

Ashmil N K v. Canara Bank

Kerala HC7 Apr 2025WP(C)/9560/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought lifting of debit freeze on his bank account frozen at police requisition in a cyber crime investigation. Following Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T., the court directed the freeze be confined to the disputed amount and lifted if police fail to report Section 102 Cr.P.C. compliance within two months.

What did the court decide?

Freeze confined to disputed amount (Rs.5,244); to be lifted if police give no Section 102 Cr.P.C. intimation within two months.

Ashmil N K Vs Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2025)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 9560 OF 2025

¶2

¶3

2025:KER:30376

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶7

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

WP(C) NO.9560OF 2025

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

ASHMIL N K
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, NADUVILAKANDI HOUSE, KIZHAKKOTH POST,
KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673572

¶11

BY ADVS.
R.SREEHARI
HAMZA A.V.
APARNA M.P.
CIBY PAUL

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 CANARA BANK

¶14

KODUVALLY BRANCH, K P 3/1156 B, CALICUT-WAYANAD ROAD,
KODUVALLY POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE
BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 673572

¶15

2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE CYBER CRIME WING, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, TAMBARAM CITY POLICE , TAMBARAM SANATORIUM POST, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU STATE, PIN - 600045

¶16

3 NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL (MHA PORTAL), NATIONAL HIGHWAY-8 MAHIPALPUR POST, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 110037

¶17

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,

¶18

WP(C) NO. 9560 OF 2025

¶19

¶20

2025:KER:30376

¶21

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001

¶22

5 STATE OF TAMILNADU
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
SHANKAR ROAD, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHEANNAI POST, TAMILNADU
STATE, PIN - 600009

¶23

dsgi sri dinesh sc sri gopikrishnan nambiar

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶25

07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(C) NO. 9560 OF 2025

¶27

¶28

2025:KER:30376

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The writ petition is filed to direct the 1^st respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.44142600008430.

¶31

The petitioner’s case is that, he is the holder of the above bank account with the 1^st respondent bank. The said account has been debit freezed by the 1^st respondent pursuant to the requisition received from the Police. The action of the 1^st respondent is arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

¶32

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

¶33

The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted

¶34

that the disputed amount as per Ext.P2 is Rs.5,244/-.

¶35

5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in

¶36

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

¶37

WP(C) NO. 9560 OF 2025

¶38

¶39

2025:KER:30376 “ 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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.”

¶43

Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v.

¶44

Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768], after

¶45

WP(C) NO. 9560 OF 2025

¶46

¶47

2025:KER:30376 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 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:

¶48

“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).

¶49

(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

¶50

WP(C) NO. 9560 OF 2025

¶51

¶52

2025:KER:30376

¶53

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.

¶54

(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.

¶55

I am in complete agreement with the views in

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

(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;

¶59

(ii). The Police Authorities are hereby directed to inform the Bank as to whether freezing of the

¶60

WP(C) NO. 9560 OF 2025

¶61

¶62

2025:KER:30376

¶63

petitioner's account will be required to be continued even in the afore manner; and if so, for what further time;

¶64

(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;

¶65

(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;

¶66

(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

¶67

WP(C) NO. 9560 OF 2025

¶68

¶69

2025:KER:30376

¶70

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;

¶71

(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.

¶72

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

lsn

WP(C) NO. 9560 OF 2025

¶77

¶78

2025:KER:30376

¶79

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9560/2025

¶80

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶81

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF
THE PETITIONER WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK
FOR THE DATE 05/12/2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/03/2025
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/03/2025
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT

¶82

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED AS 2023 KHC
661 [SAJEER (DR.) -VS- RESERVE BANK OF
INDIA]
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/07/2024
PASSED IN W.P.(C).NO.22834/2024 BY THE
HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Ashmil N K v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashmil N K 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muneera Beevi Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Sahina P Vs the Union of India

The Mangalpady Grama Panchayat Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Abhishek R. S Vs Union of India

Mohammed Musthafa.N.P Vs the Bank Manager

Ahamed P.I Vs Federal Bank