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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27983

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
SHAHANAS. T – Appellant
Versus
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6458 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.ALVIN JEWEL S.S., SMT.VIDHYA T.U.
For the Respondents: SRI TONY AUGUSTINE GP, SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SC

Bank account freezing limited to requisitioned amount; follow SOP for cybercrime holds and grievance redressal.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged the freezing of a bank account pursuant to police requisition, claiming no involvement in the underlying crime, alleging violation of Sections 106 & 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Article 300A of the Constitution. The bank confirmed the lien for Rs.1,619/- based on requisition and independently restricted operations due to suspicion. The court relied on prior precedents and the SOP for NCRP-CFCFRMS, 2026, directing limited lien to requisitioned amounts absent suspicion of cybercrime. Key issues included legality of account freezing without accused status and bank's independent restrictions. Ratio: Freezing must be limited to requisitioned sums per SOP Clause 10 for grievance redressal; banks must follow guidelines for suspicion-based holds, enabling account operation beyond liened amounts unless linked to cybercrimes. Writ petition disposed with directions to bank for transaction details, explanation review, confined freeze, SOP compliance, and grievance mechanism access.

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 an amount of Rs.1,619/- for marking lien/freeze in the account of the Petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition, and hence, the Bank has effected the freezing of the account of the Petitioner. Apart from that, the Bank has prevented the operation of the account of the Petitioner since the Bank is having suspicion with respect to the operation of the account.

3. The issue with respect to the freezing of the bank account at the requisition of the police authorities 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. 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. 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.

4. With respect to the prevention of operation of the Account of the Petitioner by the Bank without any requisition from any Police Authorities, this Court has laid down certain guidelines to be followed by the Bank in Abdul Azeez v. Union of India [2025 KLT OnLine 3447]. The above SOP does not deal with the prevention of accounts by the Bank on its own suspicion without any requisition from any authority. Hence, the Respondent/Bank is to follow the guidelines in Abdul Azeez (supra) since the Bank has stopped the operation of the account, entertaining suspicion.

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

i. The Respondent/Bank is directed to provide details of the suspicious transactions to the Petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to enable the Petitioner to submit his explanation and is further directed to act in accordance with the guidelines laid down by this Court in Abdul Azeez (supra)

ii. If the Respondent/Bank is satisfied with the explanation submitted by the Petitioner for the suspicious transactions, the Respondent/Bank is directed to confine the freeze/lien/hold to the aforesa

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