Fly World Travel and Tours v. The Federal Bank Limited and Others

``` 2025:KER:28130 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 12525 OF 2025`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` FLY WORLD TRAVEL AND TOURS IBS TOWER, CALICUT ROAD, EDAPPAL POST, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER IRFAN , S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, RESIDING AT PALATHINGAL HOUSE, MANOOR, VATTAMKULAM, KALADY POST, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679576 ``` ``` BY ADVS. R.SREEHARI HAMZA A.V. APARNA M.P. CIBY PAUL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED EDAPPAL BRANCH, GOLDEN TOWER, PONNANI ROAD, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 679576`** - **`2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE CYBER CRIME CELL, LUCKNOW POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, SRI BALMIKI MARG, INSIDE HAZRATGANJ POLICE STATION, D M COMPOUND COLONY, HAZRATGANJ POST, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH STATE, PIN - 226001`** - **`3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, KUTCHERY CHOWK POST, RANCHI, JHARKHAND STATE, PIN - 834001`** - **`4 NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL (MHA PORTAL), NATIONAL HIGHWAY-8 MAHIPALPUR POST, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 110037`** WP(C) No.12525 of 2025 2 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28130 ``` - **`5 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, LOK BHAWAN, C BLOCK, LUCKNOW POST, UTTAR PRADESH STATE, PIN - 226001`** - **`6 STATE OF JHARKHAND REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, PROJECT BHAWAN, DHURWA POST, RANCHI, JHARKHAND STATE, PIN - 834004`** - **`7 STATE OF KERALA`** ``` REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001 ``` ``` DSGI SRI DINESH GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE SC SRI MOHAN JACOB GEORGE ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ## **`01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:`** WP(C) No.12525 of 2025 3 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28130 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 1[st] day of April, 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.15470200004628. 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 requisitions received from the police. The action of the 1[st] respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition 3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.27,706/-. 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.12525 of 2025 4 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28130 ``` “ 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.12525 of 2025 5 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28130 ``` 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.12525 of 2025 6 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28130 ``` 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 its 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 the contentions in this Writ Petition are left open and reserved to them, 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.12525 of 2025 7 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28130` 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 WP(C) No.12525 of 2025 8 ``` 2025:KER:28130 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12525/2025`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 27/07/2019 WITH RESPECT TO FLY WORLD TRAVEL AND TOURS Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK FOR THE PERIOD 15/03/2025 TO 19/03/2025 Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/03/2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, EVIDENCING THE MARKING OF LIEN FOR RS. 7,000/-, ON THE BASIS OF INSTRUCTIONS RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/03/2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, EVIDENCING THE MARKING OF LIEN FOR RS. 20,706/-, ON THE BASIS OF INSTRUCTIONS RECEIVED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/03/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH A LEGIBLE COPY OF THE SAME Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED AS 2023 KHC 661 [SAJEER (DR.) -VS- RESERVE BANK OF INDIA] Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/07/2024 PASSED IN W.P.(C).NO.22834/2024 BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA ```