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) 28070

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
FRANCHISE INDIA BRANDS LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CYBER POLICE HEAD QUARTERS – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 25776 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.SETHUNATH,SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (K/1051/2010),SHRI.SREEGANESH U.,SHRI.LAKSHMINARAYAN.R,SHRI.GAUTHAM KRISHNAN K.G.
For the Respondents: SHRI.LAL K.JOSEPH,SHRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR),SMT.T.A.LUXY,SHRI.SURESH SUKUMAR,SRI.ANZIL SALIM,SHRI.SANJAY SELLEN,SRI. TONY AUGUSTINE - GP

Banks cannot transfer account funds on court orders without notice to holder; lien limits and SOP compliance required.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged the debit freeze on its bank account imposed by police requisition in a cyber crime case where it was not an accused, alleging violation of Sections 106 & 107 BNSS, 2023 and Article 300A of the Constitution. Court noted bank confirmation of lien for Rs.1,47,500/- with partial transfer per magistrate order. Petitioner contested magistrate order for lack of notice. Court deprecated banks transferring funds without account holder notice and found petitioner not party to magistrate proceedings. Issue framed as legality of account freeze/transfer absent petitioner involvement or notice. Ratio: Banks must not act on court orders for fund transfer without notice to affected account holders; affected parties must challenge such orders separately. Directions issued for limited lien and SOP compliance. Writ petition disposed directing bank to permit account operation limiting lien to Rs.25,849/-, liberty to challenge magistrate order, subject to NCRP-CFCFRMS SOP and grievance mechanism.

Table of Content
1. challenge to unauthorized bank account freeze lien. (Para 1)
2. bank lien details and order validity arguments. (Para 2 , 3)
3. deprecate no-notice fund transfers by banks. (Para 4)
4. limited lien, sop compliance, challenge liberty. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of April, 2026 The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the

1.

debit freezing/lien of his Bank account with the Respondent/Bank at the requisition of the Police Authorities. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is not an accused in the Crime registered by the Police authorities against some other persons, in which the requisition was made; that the Petitioner is in no way connected with the said Crime; and that the debit freezing/lien of the account is in violation of Sections 106 & 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Bank, after

2.

getting instructions from the Bank, confirmed that the Bank has received the Requisition from the Respondent No.5 for an amount of Rs.1,47,500/- for marking lien in the account of the Petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition; that on receipt of Ext.P8 Court Order, the Bank has transferred an amount of Rs.1,21,651/- to the account of the victim in compliance with the said Order;

and that the balance lien amount is Rs.25,849/-.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Ext.P8

3.

Order of the Magistrate’s Court is illegal as the same was allowed on an Application without impleading the Petitioner, who is the affected party. The Bank ought not to have transferred the amount without notice to the Petitioner, especially when this Writ Petition is pending consideration before this Court.

This Court has deprecated the practice of the Banks

4.

transferring the amount from the account without notice to the account holder when it receives Court Order for transferring the amount. It is seen from Ext.P8 Order that the Petitioner was not a party to the said Order. It is for the Petitioner to challenge Ext.P8 Order in appropriate proceedings.

Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the

5.

Respondent Bank to permit the Petitioner to operate the account, limiting the lien to Rs.25,849/- and giving liberty to the Petitioner to challenge Ext.P8 in appropriate proceedings, subject to the following conditions:

The disposal of the frozen/lien/hold amount shall be in i) accordance withSOP for NCRP – CFCFRMS, Custody,Restoration of Money and Grievance Redressal 2026Petitioner is free to redress his grievance through the ii) Grievance Redressal Mechanism provided under Clause 10 of the above SOP with respect to the frozen/lien/hold amount.

Sd/-

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