Ahamed P.I Vs Federal Bank — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ahamed P.I Vs Federal Bank — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: freeze confined to the amount in the police requisition (disputed amount Rs.8,063/- per counsel's recorded submission); police to intimate whether the freeze should continue and for how long; if no intimation of Section 102 Cr.P.C. compliance is received by the Bank within two months of receipt of the judgment, the Bank shall lift the debit freeze or remove the lien; parties to serve the judgment on the jurisdictional officer with proof.

Issue for consideration

Whether the debit freeze imposed by the 1st respondent bank on the petitioner's account No.12940100079659 pursuant to a police requisition should be lifted or confined to the disputed amount.

Court's answer

The 1st 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, forthwith, enabling transactions beyond that limit.

Ratio / Principle

The Police Authorities are directed to inform the Bank whether the freezing of the petitioner's account is required to be continued, and if so, for what further time; on receiving such intimation the Bank will adhere to it and either continue or withdraw the freeze accordingly.

Key takeaways

If no information or intimation is received by the Bank in terms of direction (ii), the petitioner will be at full liberty to approach this Court again, with all his contentions left open and reserved.ratio¶¶57
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 Cr.P.C. is received within two months of receipt of the judgment, the Bank shall lift the debit freeze or remove the lien on the account.ratio¶¶58
To enable police compliance, the Bank and the petitioner shall forthwith serve a copy of the judgment on the jurisdictional officer and retain proof of such service.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bank account freeze — Writ petition under Article 226 jurisdiction of the High Court of Kerala seeking lifting of a debit freeze on the petitioner's account No.12940100079659 with the 1st respondent bank, imposed pursuant to a requisition from the 2nd respondent police authority. 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] (with which the Court expressed complete agreement), the Court disposed of the petition directing: (i) the freeze be confined to the amount in the police order/requisition (disputed amount recorded as Rs.8,063/-); (ii)-(iii) the Police to inform the Bank whether the freeze is to continue and for how long, and the Bank to act accordingly; (iv) the petitioner at liberty to approach the Court again if no intimation is received, contentions left open; (v) the jurisdictional police to inform the Bank whether the seizure has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 102 Cr.P.C., failing intimation of compliance or proposal to comply within two months of receipt of the judgment, the Bank to lift the debit freeze or remove the lien; (vi) the Bank and petitioner to serve the judgment on the jurisdictional officer and retain proof of service.

WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2025

2025:KER:30024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

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

WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

AHAMED P.I
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O MAMMU HAJI, PALASSERI ITHIKKAL, MAMBEEDI, OORAKAM
KIZHUMURI P.O, OORAKAM, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676304

BY ADVS.
SADIQALI. M
MUHAMMAD SABIK
PRAGEENA A.P.

RESPONDENTS:

1 FEDERAL BANK

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, OORAKAM BRANCH, OORAKAM VENGARA, OORAKAM, KERALA, PIN - 676304

2 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE STATE CRIME RECORDS BUREAU ,NO.95, SANTHOME HIGH ROAD, RAJA ANNAMALAIPURAM, CHENNAI, [email protected], PIN - 600028

3 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (DGP) OFFICE, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, INDIA [email protected], PIN - 600004

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2025

2025:KER:30024

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to direct the 1^st respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.12940100079659.

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 2^nd respondent. The action of the 1^st respondent is arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

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

The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted that the petitioner’s bank account has been debit freezed. The disputed amount in the connected matter is Rs.8,063/-. The said submission is recorded.

5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in

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

WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2025

2025:KER:30024

“ 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

WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2025

2025:KER:30024

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:

“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

WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2025

2025:KER:30024

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 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 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;

(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

WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2025

2025:KER:30024

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;

(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

WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2025

2025:KER:30024

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.

JUDGE

lsn

WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2025

2025:KER:30024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9953/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 10-03-2025
Exhibit P2 NOTICE DATED 24-01-2025
Exhibit P3 NOTICE DATED 28-01-2025
Exhibit P4 NOTICE DATED 30-01-2025