Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40935
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
ANURAG JAIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 25346/2024
KALA T.GOPI, KAILESH T. GOPI, NISHITHA BALACHANDRAN, RAHUL R., MAMATHA S., ANILKUMAR
High Courts can exercise jurisdiction if any part of the cause of action arises within their territorial limits, even if the authority is outside those limits.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226(2) - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 102 - Jurisdiction of High Courts - Writ petition maintainable where part of cause of action arises within territorial limits of the Court, despite the authority being situated outside those limits - The freezing of the petitioner's bank account was based on requisition from the Palarivattom Police, establishing a connection to the jurisdiction of the Court. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 10)
(B) Police Powers - The police have the authority under Section 102 to seize property suspected of involvement in a crime, including bank accounts - Delay in reporting seizure to the Magistrate does not vitiate the seizure unless there is an abject violation of procedure. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s bank account was frozen based on a requisition from the Palarivattom Police, leading to a challenge regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the writ petition. (Paras 1, 4)
Findings of Court:
The Court found the writ petition maintainable and issued directions regarding the reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with procedural requirements. (Paras 4, 10)
Issues: The main issues addressed were the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and the validity of the freezing of the bank account under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. (Paras 1, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the freezing of the bank account based on police requisition constitutes a part of the cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Court, and emphasized the need for police compliance with procedural requirements under Section 102 Cr.P.C. (Paras 4, 10)
Result: Writ petition allowed with directions.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2024
The petitioner, a resident of Ajmer in Rajasthan, is maintaining an account with the Kishangarh LI Branch of the HDFC Bank. The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the sudden freezing of petitioner’s account, based on a requisition received from the Palarivattom Police in Kerala. The branch being outside Kerala, the learned counsel for the petitioner was called upon to address arguments on the question of territorial jurisdiction. In answer, it was submitted that, since the account is frozen at the instance of the Palarivattom Police, part of cause of action arose within the territorial limits of this Court and hence, the writ petition is maintainable. In support of the contention, the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Renu v. State of Karnataka and Ors [W.P.(Crl) No.493 of 2024] is relied on.
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. In Nawal 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 inShanti 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 Palarivattom Police. 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 re
