Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; disposed with directions...

Abdul Khadar C P v. Canara Bank Chalappuram Branch & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 7386 of 2025

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2025-03-25
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is allowed. The 1st respondent bank is directed to confine the freezing order to the amount mentioned in the police requisition (Rs. 9,000) so that the petitioner can transact beyond that limit. The Police Authorities must inform the Bank whether the freezing of the petitioner's account should be continued and for what period, within eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; the Bank shall act accordingly. If no information is received, the petitioner shall have liberty to approach the Court again, with all contentions kept open. The jurisdictional police officer(s) are also directed to inform the Bank whether seizure has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 102 CrPC (now Section 106 BNSSS) and, if not, provide a time frame for compliance. Service of this judgment to the concerned officers shall be effected. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; disposed with directions to confine freeze to the specified amount and to follow up with police on continuation and reporting; petition kept open if no information is received; judgment to be served on officers.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Abdul Khadar C P

Respondents

  • Canara Bank Chalappuram Branch represented by its Branch Manager
  • Canara Bank Head Office represented by its Manager
  • Inspector of Police Beguru Police Station
  • Inspector General of Police KSRP
  • Nodal Officer Notational Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, Ministry of Home Affairs

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Maaroof

Case Synopsis & Summary

The writ petition challenges the debit freeze of Abdul Khadar C P’s Canara Bank account No. 1144104032619, imposed following a police requisition. The petitioner contends the freezing order is illegal, arbitrary and denies him access to his funds, especially since the disputed sum is Rs 9,000. The bank defends the freeze as a precautionary measure in the course of a criminal inquiry and cites the police requisition. The High Court anchors its decision in Dr. Sajeer v RBI (2024) and Nazeer K.T v Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024), which direct banks to confine freezes to the amount specified in police orders and require the police to inform whether continuation is necessary, within a defined period. It also relies on Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen to emphasize timely reporting of seizures to the jurisdictional Magistrate and the consequences of delay. The judge ultimately directs the 1st respondent bank to confine the freeze to the amount mentioned in the police order, directs the police to inform whether freezing should continue and for what period, and requires action by the bank within the given timetable. If information is not provided, the petition may be renewed; judgment is to be served on relevant officers. The petition is disposed accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 102 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSection 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Freeze should be confined to the amount mentioned in the police order/requisition so as to enable transaction beyond the limit
  • Police authorities must inform whether the freeze should continue and for what period, within a defined timeframe
  • Delay in reporting seizure to the Magistrate may be irregular; total failure to report has negative impact on seizure validity; banks may lift the debit freeze if no intimation within the prescribed period

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the debit freeze on account No. 1144104032619 was imposed by the Canara Bank solely on the basis of a police requisition and is therefore illegal and arbitrary. He argues that the disputed amount is only Rs. 9,000 and the bank’s freeze should be restricted to that amount to permit normal banking operations. The petitioner asserts a fundamental right to access his funds and contends the freeze causes needless hardship and obstructs lawful transactions. Relying on the precedents Dr. Sajeer v. RBI and Nazeer K.T v. Federal Bank Ltd, he urges the Court to adopt a proportional, time-bound approach, confining freezes to the specified amounts and requiring police to provide timely information about continuation. He further contends that repeated or indefinite freezing erodes trust in banking and undermines the purpose of the police requisition while protecting legitimate interests of account holders. The petitioner seeks an immediate lifting of the excess freeze and a direction to operate beyond the specified limit until the police-requisition period ends.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the freeze is a legitimate response to a police requisition in the context of an ongoing inquiry, with a total disputed amount of Rs 9,000. They argue that banks must comply with police directions to secure funds and ensure investigation integrity, and that the freeze should continue until police inform whether it should be prolonged and for what period. The bank maintains that it acts within its prudential duty and in accordance with the requisition and statutory framework. They urge the court to refrain from disturbing the balance between law enforcement needs and the account holder’s access, pending the police’s timely reporting under Section 102 CrPC (now Section 106 BNSSS). The respondents highlight the necessity of cooperation with authorities and adherence to due process before altering any freeze order.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India2024 (1) KLT 826PositiveDirects banks to confine freezes to the amounts mentioned in police orders and to obtain timely information from police to enable release of funds, forming the controlling principle adopted here.
Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd2024 KHC OnLine 768PositiveFollows Dr. Sajeer; applies similar reasoning and interpretation of Section 102/106 BNSSS in freeze cases.
State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy(1999) 7 SCC 685PositiveEmphasizes timely reporting to Magistrate; failure to report can negate seizure validity and justify lifting of freeze.
Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat(2018) 2 SCC 372PositiveCited to support the importance of timely reporting and related procedural standards.
Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others2024 SCC OnLine SC 895PositiveSupports the proposition that delays and compliance with reporting standards affect seizure validity.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Khadar C P v. Canara Bank Chalappuram Branch & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` 2025:KER:25988 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 7386 OF 2025 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ABDUL KHADAR C P AGED 57 YEARS S/O KUNHABDULLA, CHERIYA PUTHALATH, THIRUVALLUR, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673541 ``` ## **`BY ADV MAAROOF`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 CANARA BANK CHALAPPURAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, , 18/395, CANARA BANK BUILDING, SAMOODHAM ROAD, CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT, KERALA, PIN - 673002`** - **`2 CANARA BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE, 112, J.C ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560002`** - **`3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BEGURU POLICE STATION, BEGUR RD, VISHWAPRIYA NAGAR, BEGUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560068`** - **`4 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KSRP, DG IGP OFFICE, NO 1, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560061`** - **`5 NODAL OFFICER NOTATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110037`** WP(C) No.7386 of 2025 2 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25988 ``` ## **`DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA SC SRI GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) No.7386 of 2025 3 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25988 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 25[th] day of March, 2025** The writ petition is filed to direct the 1[st] respondent bank to lift the debit freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.1144104032619. 2. The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 1[st] respondent bank. The petitioner contends that the 1[st] respondent bank has frozen the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to the requisition received from the police. The action of the 1[st] respondent is illegal and arbitrary. 3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent submitted that the total disputed amount is Rs.9,000/-. 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: WP(C) No.7386 of 2025 4 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25988 ``` “ 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 Section 102 of the Code laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme WP(C) No.7386 of 2025 5 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25988 ``` 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 ofreceipt 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 WP(C) No.7386 of 2025 6 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25988 ``` principles squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand. In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ petition by passing the following directions: (i). The 1[st] respondent Bank is directed to confine the freezing order of the petitioner's bank account 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 account beyond the said limit; (ii). The Police Authorities are hereby directed to inform the Bank as to whether freezing of the petitioner's account 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 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 Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. is WP(C) No.7386 of 2025 7 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25988 ``` 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 account; (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** AJ/26.03.2025 WP(C) No.7386 of 2025 8 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25988 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7386/2025`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.08.2024 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ```