Back
22-Year-Old's Account Freeze Stands: Orders FIR for Under BNS
A bank account that lay dormant for months suddenly saw over ₹50 lakhs zip through in 15 days—and when the owner tried to unfreeze it, the not only refused, but ordered a criminal case against him.
The dismissed a filed by 22-year-old Safwan Muhamed Sherif, who sought a direction to the to lift the on his account, which had been frozen after multiple law enforcement agencies flagged suspicious transactions. Instead, Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim directed the Station House Officer, , to register an FIR under and investigate the petitioner for operating a “” account.
The Sudden Spike That Raised Red Flags
According to the bank’s counter , Sherif’s account—opened in —was largely inactive until . Between , the account witnessed a massive spike in credits and debits aggregating over ₹50 lakhs, with multiple high-value transactions passing through in a short span. The bank also disclosed that it had received five separate freeze requisitions from police stations in Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu, seeking to freeze a total of ₹21,00,000.
The petitioner claimed the account was his primary business account for two enterprises—Ripi Foods (a wholesale dry fruit business) and Nipolta Media (LED wall and media services)—and that he received a monthly salary of ₹35,000 from one and ₹40,000 from the other. However, he provided no supporting documents, and the bank’s records showed no regular salary deposits. The credit balance in the account as of was a mere Re.1.
The Court’s Scrutiny: Lying on
Justice Hakhim took a dim view of the petitioner’s claims. In his reply , Sherif asserted he was a working partner in the two businesses, but the court noted he had “stated utter falsehood.” The judge observed that the petitioner, aged only 22, had not explained the sudden inflow of large sums and had withdrawn almost the entire amount immediately.
The court then turned its attention to the conduct of the lawyer who attested the . Citing the lawyer’s duty as an officer of the court, the judgment strongly condemned the practice:
“This Court strongly condemns the conduct of the Counsel for the Petitioner and strongly deprecates the practice of Advocates attesting Affidavits of their clients fully knowing that the statements contained in the are false."
The judge, however, refrained from taking any action against the advocate or the petitioner, considering their young age.
Legal Precedent on Discretion
The petitioner had relied on earlier decisions—including and —to argue that the bank should limit the only to the amounts specified in the requisitions. But the court distinguished those rulings, citing its own decision in , which held that the court can deny relief under if it believes the account was used to facilitate , even if procedural irregularities exist.
Given the suspicious transaction pattern and the , the court concluded that the petitioner was using his account as a “” to launder proceeds of .
What the Order Means
The was dismissed. The court directed the to register a crime under (which criminalises acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, including ) and to investigate the matter.
The decision serves as a strong reminder that banks can—and increasingly do—freeze accounts flagged by law enforcement, and that litigants who approach the high court with may face criminal consequences.
