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. 27190 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S:

NEERAJ S.

AGED 28 YEARS S/O. SURESH KUMAR, KIZHIYAPAT HOUSE, P.O.

KANIYARKODE, THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680594 BY ADVS.

P.JAYARAM O.M.RAVI P.B.AJOY ATHUL G.T.

RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK THIRUVILWAMALA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, RK BUILDING, P.O. THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680588

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD CITY CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, CBCID GUJARAT POLICE, P.O. AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT, EMAIL:

PI_CYBERCRIME_AHD@GUJARAT.GOV.IN, PIN -

380001 BY ADVS.

VIDYA GANGADHARAN(K/000424/2020)

JERIN GEORGE(K/863/2023)

SRI. SUNIL SHANKER FOR SIB.

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 and the Standing Counsel for the bank. 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, I also consider it apposite to scrutinise the issue in the context of the applicable provision and the precedents on the point. The intimation from the police, in most of the cases, refers to Section 102 of Cr.P.C., which, no doubt, is the applicable provision. Hence, Section 102 is extracted hereunder for easy reference. Here, it is essential to note that Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which is the corresponding provision, is also identically worded.

“Section 102:- Power of police officer to seize certain property- (1) Any police officer may seize any property which