WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:28404 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2025 PETITIONER: VAISAKH S V AGED 34 YEARS, S/O SREEKANTAN NAIR, PUTHARATHALA VEEDU KANCHIYOORKONAM, KATTAKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695572 BY ADVS. SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.C.J.JIYAS SMT.T.S.KRISHNENDU SMT.JANET VARGHESE SRI.ADARSH A. RESPONDENTS: 1 GRIEVANCE OFFICER/ ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL, KERALA REGION, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE BALUA POLICE STATION CHANDUALI DISTRICT, UTTARPRADESH, PIN - 232109 3 FEDERAL BANK FEDERAL TOWERS MARINE DRIVE WALKWAY, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 682031 GP SRI B S SYAMANTHAK SC SRI MOHAN JACOB GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:28404 JUDGMENT Dated this the 03rd day of April, 2025 The writ petition is filed to direct the 3rd respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s FI account bearing No.55550108038140 and Jupitor payment account No.77770126390547. 2. The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 3rd respondent bank. The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent has frozen the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to a requisition received from the 2nd respondent. The action of the 3rd respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent bank submitted that, even though a requisition has been WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:28404 received from the 2nd respondent, no amount is mentioned in the said requisition. The said submission is recorded. 5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826] held as follows: “ a. The respondent Banks arrayed in these cases, are directed to confine the order of freeze against the accounts of the respective petitioners, only to the extent of the amounts mentioned in the order/requisition issued to them by the Police Authorities. This shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioners to deal with their accounts, and transact therein, beyond that limit. b. The respondent – Police Authorities concerned are hereby directed to inform the respective Banks as to whether freezing of accounts of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions will require to be continued even in the afore manner; and if so, for what further time, within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. c. On the Banks receiving the afore information/intimation from the Police Authorities, they will adhere with it and complete necessary action – either continuing the freeze for such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may be. d. If, however, no information or intimation is received by their Banks in terms of directions (b) above, the petitioners or such among them, will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all their contentions in these Writ Petitions are left open and reserved to them, to impel in future.” 6. Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768], after concurring with the view in Dr.Sajeer's case (supra) and taking into consideration Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and the interpretation of WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:28404 Section 102 of the Code laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy [(1999) 7 SCC 685], Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat [(2018) 2 SCC 372] and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 895], has held thus: “8. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that, while delay in forthwith reporting the seizure to the Magistrate may only be an irregularity, total failure to report the seizure will definitely have a negative impact on the validity of the seizure. In such circumstances, account holders like the petitioner, most of whom are not even made accused in the crimes registered, cannot be made to wait indefinitely hoping that the police may act in tune with S.102 and report the seizure as mandated under Sub-section (3) at some point of time. In that view of the matter, the following direction is issued, in addition to the directions in Dr.Sajeer (supra). (i) The Police officer concerned shall inform the banks whether the seizure of 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 the S.102 is informed to bank within one month of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the bank shall lift the debit freeze imposed on the petitioner's account. (ii) 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 officer concerned and retain proof of such service. 7. I am in complete agreement with the views in Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T cases (supra). The above principles squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand. WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:28404 In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ petition by passing the following directions: (i). The 3rd respondent Bank is directed to confine the freezing order of the petitioner's bank accounts only to the extent of the amount mentioned in the order/requisition issued by the Police Authorities. The above exercise shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioner to transact through his accounts beyond the said limit; (ii). The Police Authorities are hereby directed to inform the Bank as to whether freezing of the petitioner's accounts will be required to be continued even in the afore manner; and if so, for what further time; (iii). On the Bank receiving the afore information/intimation from the Police Authorities, they will adhere with it and complete necessary action – either continuing the freeze 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 full liberty to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all his contentions in this Writ Petition are left open and reserved to him, to impel in future; (v). The jurisdictional police officers shall inform the Bank whether the seizure of the bank accounts 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 WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:28404 to comply with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. is received by the Bank within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Bank shall lift the debit freeze or remove the lien, as the case may be, on the petitioner's bank accounts; (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 jurisdictional officer and retain proof of such service. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE NAB WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:28404 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1942/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRESENTATION DATED 21.12.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT