Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12897
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
AMAL SREEKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL – Respondent
WP(C) 33687/2024
R.SUNIL KUMAR, A.SALINI LAL, J.M.DEEPAK, JINU P. BINU, SHAHIER SINGH M., SHARAN SHAHIER(K/1202/2010), GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SRI BS SYAMANTHAK
Banks must limit account freezes to specified amounts in police requisitions and act promptly on police communications regarding account status.
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 - The petitioner contends that the freezing of the account by the bank, based on police requisition, is illegal and arbitrary - Court held that banks must limit freezing to amounts specified in police requisitions and must act promptly on police communications regarding account status. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
(B) Judicial Directions - The court directed that if no information is received from the police regarding the seizure within specified timeframes, the bank must lift the freeze on the account. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s bank account was frozen by the bank following police requisitions without specifying any amount, leading to the writ petition for lifting the freeze.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the bank to unfreeze the account to the extent of the amount mentioned in the police requisition and established timelines for police communication regarding the seizure.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the bank's action in freezing the account without a specified amount and the procedural requirements for police notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that banks must act within the limits of police requisitions and that indefinite freezing without proper communication is unjust.
Result: Writ petition ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2025 The writ petition is filed to direct the 3rd respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.50200084808585.
2. The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 3rd respondent bank. The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent has frozen the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to the requisitions received from the Police. The action of the 3rd respondent is illegal and arbitrary.
Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent bank.
4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent bank submitted that, even though the requisitions have been received from the Police, no amount has been mentioned in the requisition. 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 inNazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768], after concurring with the view inDr.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 inState 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. Jul 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 e
