Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39677
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
ABHIRATH MAHALINGAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 33738/2024
BINDU SUKUMARAN, AMRIN FATHIMA, SRI. M. PREMCHAND, SRI. AJITH VISWANATHAN, GP
The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions if the cause of action arises within its territorial limits, even if the authority involved is outside those limits.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226(2) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 102 - Jurisdiction of High Court - Writ petition against freezing of bank account based on police requisition - High Court has jurisdiction as the cause of action arose from police action within its territory - Court affirms that the freezing was integral to the cause of action and therefore maintainable. (Paras 2-4)
(B) Police Powers - The police possess the authority to freeze accounts under Section 102, provided they report the seizure to the Magistrate as mandated - Delay in reporting does not vitiate the seizure unless there is a total failure to report. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the freezing of their bank account by HDFC Bank, based on a police requisition from Kerala, despite residing in West Bengal. The court examined the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The court held that the freezing of the account was integral to the cause of action and reaffirmed the jurisdiction of the High Court. The police must comply with the requirements of Section 102, and failure to report the seizure would affect its validity. (Paras 4, 10)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition given the location of the petitioner and the bank. (Para 1)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the freezing of the bank account based on police requisition constituted a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the High Court, and emphasized the importance of timely reporting of seizures by police under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. (Paras 9, 10)
Result: Writ petition allowed with specific directions for compliance by police and banks.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2024 The petitioner, a resident of West Bengal, is maintaining an account with the Tollygunge Branch of HDFC Bank. The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the sudden freezing of petitioner’s account, based on a requisition received from the Kurathikadu Police Station, Alappuzha in Kerala. As the petitioner’s residence and location of the branch is outside Kerala, question arises as to whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition.
2. For answering the issue of territorial jurisdiction, a proper understanding of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, extracted hereunder for easy reference is essential;
“226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.-
(1) …...
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.”
3. Thus, irrespective of whether the seat of the authority that passed the order impugned is situated outside its territorial limits, a High Court can exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen within its territorial limits. As held by the Apex Court inAlchemist Ltd. & Others v. State Bank of Sikkim and Others [ (2007) 11 SCC 335 ], for the purpose of deciding whether the facts averred in a writ petition would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. InNawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India [ (2014) 9 SCC 329 ], the Apex Court held the High Court of Patna to be having jurisdiction, since the petitioner was served with the order of discharge and the order rejecting his representation claiming disability compensation at his residential address in Patna. Similar view was expressed in Shanti Devi alias Shanti Mishra v. Union of India and Others [ 2020 10 SCC 766 ] also.
4. In the case on hand, even though the petitioner’s bank is situated in another State, the freezing of his account is based solely on the requisition/intimation received from the Kurathikadu Police Station, Alappuzha. Thus, direction from the police is the seminal reason for the freezing and is hence an integral part of the cause of action. The writ petition is therefore found to be maintainable before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court in Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826] has addressed the plight of similarly situated persons, and after elaborately dealing with the revolutionary change in money transactions with the advent of Unified Payment Interface (UPI for short), as also the positives and negatives of UPI transactions in the context of Cyber crimes and Online fraud, the writ petitions were disposed of with certain directions. The petitioner is also seeking disposal of his case in similar manner.
6. Heard.
7. For convenience, the directions in Dr.Sajeer's case (supra) is extracted hereunder:-
“ 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 o
