Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32879
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.Abdul Hakhim, J
Riyasudheen Kanhirakatt – Appellant
Versus
Federal Bank – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 42074 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Latheef P.K., Muhammed Shifas P.M., Albin T.O.
For the Respondents: Alka Warriar, Tony Augustine
A court will not issue a writ of mandamus to de-freeze a bank account when there is documented evidence that the account is being utilized for cyber fraud and criminal activities.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent bank to de-freeze their bank account. The respondent, represented by the government, submitted that the account was frozen due to the involvement of the petitioner in multiple cyber fraud offenses, as evidenced by a registered crime in the police records. The court observed that such evidence of criminal involvement prevents any judicial intervention to permit the operation of the account. The core issue was whether a direction could be issued to de-freeze an account used for cyber fraud. The court reasoned that since evidence exists connecting the petitioner to criminal activities involving the account, granting the relief sought would facilitate continued criminal action, thus precluding the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial refusal to restore bank accounts linked to criminal cyber activity. (Para 1 , 2) |
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking direction to de-freeze the account maintained by the Petitioner with the Respondent Bank. The learned Government Pleader has filed a Memo dated 07.04.2026, producing the Statement of the Respondent No.4, in which it is stated that the Petitioner is involved in several cyber offences and he is the accused in crime No. 305 of 2026, registered in the Tirur Police Station. Since the Petitioner has been using the account to commit cyber fraud, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner by directing to permit him to operate the account.
2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
