Bank account freeze must be limited to specified disputed amount in police requisition; otherwise, full operability permitted pending SOP compliance.

2. In spite of service of notice to the Respondent No.2, there is no appearance for the Respondent No.2. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Bank, after getting instructions from the Bank, confirmed that the Bank has received the Requisition from the Respondent No.2 for freezing/marking lien in the account of the Petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition. It is submitted that the disputed amount is not stated in the Requisition. Hence, the Bank has effected freezing of the account of the Petitioner.

3. The issue is covered by the decisions of this Court in Dr.

Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826], Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank, Makkaraparamba Branch [2024 KHC 768] and Abhiraj Rajan v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 1676]. This Court has been consistently issuing the directions to the effect that the Bank is to permit the account holder to operate his account, limiting the lien to the amounts shown in the Requisitions received by the Bank so long as the Bank does not have any suspicion that the account is used for any financial cybercrime activities or money mule activities, making the frozen/lien marked amount at the disposal of the jurisdictional Magistrate’s Court.

4. Recently, the Indian Cyber Crime Co-Ordination Centre of the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India has formulated an SOP for NCRP – CFCFRMS, Custody, Restoration of Money and Grievance Redressal 2026 to establish a fair and transparent system that prescribes a uniform process to be followed by all the Participating Entities. The SOP includes procedures to prevent misuse of the system of putting on hold an amount, seizure of an account and any property to help the victims of Cyber-Enabled Financial Crimes (CEFC), and to give interim custody of the amount to the victim and restoration of such property while ensuring accountability of all the participants for their action and inaction and providing avenues for time-bound grievance redressal for parties affected by actions taken based on information provided by the system. It is intended that States and UTs, working with other Participating Entities, follow the SOP and are successful in preventing defrauded money from leaving the financial system, giving interim custody and restoration of the amount to the victim, and, in the process, help create a cybercrime-resilient financial ecosystem.

5. Clause 10 of the SOP provides for a time-bound Grievance Redressal Mechanism for the Account Holders in whose accounts the amounts are put on hold or whose account operation is suspended. It is for the Petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with Clause 10 of the SOP, with respect to the frozen/lien/hold amount.

6. Since the Requisition issued by the Police Authorities does not show the disputed amount, it will be an injustice if the Petitioner is totally prevented from operating the Bank Account. The Police Authorities are to be directed to inform the Bank of the disputed amount within a time frame, failing which the Petitioner shall be allowed to operate the Bank Account without any restriction.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i)The Respondent/Bank is directed to seek, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the details of the disputed amount in the Requisition already communicated to the Bank from the Police Authorities, sending a copy of this judgment, and the Police Authorities shall communicate the details of the disputed amount in the Requisition already communicated to the Bank within a period of one month from the date of receipt of communication from the Bank and in case of default by the Police Authorities, the Bank shall lift the freeze/lien imposed on the Petitioner's account. In case of getting knowledge of the details of the disputed