IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 26886 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S:

ABDULLA.N AGED 67 YEARS S/O MOOSSA, RESIDING AT NELLIYULLATHIL HOUSE, KOLAVALLOOR, CHERUPARAMBA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN - 670693 BY ADVS.

D.ARUN BOSE K.VISWAN P.S.POOJA RESPONDENT/S:

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110001

2 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, HEAD OFFICE, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA., PIN - 400029

3 INVESTIGATING OFFICER D.NO. PI. CYBER CRIME/ ALL BANK/ NP_428/2023, CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, 3RD FLOOR, SULEMANI TRANRASTA, NEW PANITAGE POLICE STATION GUJARATH, INDIA, PINCODE:390019., PIN - 390019

4 MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE, 112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE., PIN -

560002

5 CANARA BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PARAT BRANCH ., PIN - 670693

6 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 673633 BY ADVS.

Gopikrishnan Nambiar M K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)

JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)

KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)

PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)

RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)

SRI. AJITH VISWANATHAN, GP.

DSGI IN CHARGE T.C. KRISHNA. SRI. M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SC FOR CANARA BANK.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by the sudden freezing of his account by the bank based on requisitions/intimation received from the police. The police in turn has acted on the basis of Cyber Crime Incident Reports filed by persons subjected to online financial fraud/UPI fraud.

2. 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.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel for the bank, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Central Government Counsel. The police authorities, at whose instance the accounts are frozen, though served with notice through e-mail, have not entered appearance.

4. 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 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.”

5. While I am in respectful agreement with the above directions,