SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
C.S.DIAS, J.
Febin Francis, S/O Francis Paul - Appellant 
Versus 
Union Of India - Respondent  
WP(C) No. 43289 of 2024
Decided on : 11-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.K.ADHITHYAN, REUBEN CHARLY, SHAHINA NOUSHAD, CHRISTY THOMAS
For the Respondent: DSGI SRI C DINESH .SC SRI MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN

The court established that bank account freezes must be limited to specified amounts and require timely police reporting to ensure fairness to account holders.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 102 (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) - Writ petition to lift freezing of bank account - Court directed that freezing order be confined to the amount specified by Police Authorities, allowing petitioner to transact beyond that limit - Police must inform the bank regarding the necessity of continued freezing. (Paras 5, 6, 7)

(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that account holders not accused in crimes should not face indefinite delays due to police inaction regarding seizure reporting. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s bank account was frozen by the 6th respondent bank following requisitions from police authorities, which the petitioner contended was illegal and arbitrary.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the bank to limit the freeze to the specified amount and mandated police to report on the seizure status within a stipulated time.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the bank's freezing action and the procedural requirements for police reporting on account seizures.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that indefinite freezing of accounts without timely police reporting is unjust, reinforcing the need for prompt communication from police to banks regarding account seizures.

Result: Writ petition ordered accordingly.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court directs freezing to be confined to the amount specified by police authorities, enabling transactions beyond that limit (!) . - Police authorities must inform the bank whether freezing will continue and, if so, for what period; banks must act on this information (!) (!) . - If no information is received within the specified time, the bank may lift the debit freeze and the petitioner may approach the court again (!) (!) . - The bank and petitioner must serve a copy of the judgment to the concerned police officer and retain proof of service to enable compliance (!) . - The police must inform whether seizure has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate and within what time; failure to inform within two months can lead to lifting of the freeze by the bank (!) . - The judgment reiterates that indefinite delays in reporting by police are unjust and emphasizes timely communication to banks regarding seizures (!) .

What is the scope of bank account freezing that the court directs in relation to police requisitions?

What is the procedure and timeline for police reporting to banks regarding account seizures as required by the court?

What are the consequences if banks do not receive timely information from police or if police fail to report seizure to the Magistrate?


JUDGMENT :

The writ petition is filed to direct the 6th respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.917010051403733.

2. The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 6th respondent bank. The petitioner contends that the 6th respondent has frozen the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to the requisitions received from the respondents 4 and 5. The action of the 6th respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 6th respondent bank.

4. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent bank submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.3,58,290/-. 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:

“ 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.”

6. 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 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 copy of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top