SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
MUHAMMED NOUFAL – Appellant
Versus
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 22648 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHR. HAMZATH ALI V.K., SMT. AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K., SHR. MUHAMMAD SHAMEEL K., SHR. ABDULLA FUHAD K., SMT. AYISHA THASLEEMA N.P.
For the Respondents: ADV O M SHALINA, DSGI, ADV MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SC

The court emphasized that the freezing of bank accounts must be limited to specific requisition amounts and required police to comply with reporting obligations.

Headnote:(A) Banking Regulation - Freezing of Bank Accounts - The petitioner challenged the freezing of his bank account by the Federal Bank based on a police requisition of Rs.2,11,447/- - Court directs that the freezing should only apply to this amount and suggests procedures for further action by the police and the bank. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Judicial Review - Writ Petition - The court emphasizes the necessity for the police to report compliance to the jurisdictional Magistrate regarding the seizure of funds. (Paras 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contends that his bank account was improperly frozen without adequate justification, leading to the court's intervention to regulate the freezing process through specified directives.

Findings of Court:
Directions provided to limit the freezing of the account while ensuring police compliance with reporting requirements to the Bank.

Issues: The core issue raised was the legality and extent of freezing the petitioner's bank account based on police requisition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court finds that freezing should only occur in relation to specified amounts requested by police, balancing the rights of the individual against law enforcement needs, emphasizing the importance of timely communication from police authorities.

Result: Writ petition ordered in favor of the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. freezing of bank account based on police requisition. (Para 1)
2. submissions by counsel regarding freezing process. (Para 2)
3. court's examination of the facts surrounding the freezing. (Para 3)

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the freezing of his account maintained at the Kozhikode Mavoor Road Branch of the 1st respondent–Bank.

2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank and learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the bank submitted that the freezing of the petitioner's account was based on a requisition from the 4th respondent with respect to an amount of Rs.2,11,447/-. It is further submitted that no other requisition has been received from any other police authority.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The 1st respondent Bank is directed to confine the freezing of the petitioner's bank account only to the extent of the amount mentioned in the order/requisition issued by the Police Authorities.

This shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioner to transact through his account beyond the said limit;

(ii) The Police Authorities concerned are hereby directed to inform the Bank as to whether freezing of the petitioner's account will be required to be continued even in the aforesaid manner; and if so, for how long;

(iii) On the Bank receiving the aforesaid information/intimation from the Police Authorities, they shall comply with it and complete necessary action - either continuing the freezing for such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may be;

(iv) If, however, no information or intimation is received by the Bank in terms of direction (ii) above, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all contentions raised in this Writ Petition are left open;

(v) The police officers concerned shall inform the Bank whether the seizure of the amount in 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 Section 106 of the BNSS is received by the Bank within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Bank shall lift the freezing or remove the lien, as the case may be, on the petitioner's bank account;

(vi) In order to enable the Police to comply with the above direction, the Bank, as well as the petitioner, shall forthwith serve a copy of this judgment to the police officer concerned and retain proof of such service.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top