High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition disposed of with directions (a)-(e) as...

Jaleel v. Union of India & others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 7017 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2024-03-15
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is disposed of with directions as per Dr. Sajeer (supra): (a) The respondent bank shall immediately issue a request to the Investigation Authority to specify the amount to be kept in freeze or lien, within one month of this judgment. (b) If the Police/Investigating Authority mentions a particular amount, the freeze shall be confined to that amount, allowing the petitioner to deal with his account beyond that limit. (c) If no information is received within two months from the requisition, the petitioner may transact fully in his account, subject to any future information from the Police. (d) As an alternative, if the entire account is to be frozen for any reason stated in the requisition, the bank shall inform the petitioner and continue the full freeze for a period of eight months, after which-contentions may be raised again. (e) If after eight months the requisition is not withdrawn, the petitioner may approach the court again for relief, with all contentions reserved.
Final Disposition
Petition disposed of with directions (a)-(e) as outlined above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jaleel

Respondents

  • Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs
  • Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre
  • Reserve Bank of India
  • Federal Bank Ltd., Mahe Branch
  • Director General of Police, Kerala
  • Station House Officer, Kozhikode Rural Cyber Crime Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv Vishnuprasad Nair

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. S. Manu, DSGI
  • • Smt. Vidya KuriaKose, GP
  • • Sri. Mohan Jacob George, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Jaleel, challenges a blanket debit freeze imposed by a bank on his account in connection with an ongoing police investigation. The Kerala High Court, citing its earlier decision in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024(1) KLT 826), reiterates that a blanket, indefinite freeze without a defined time or amount is deleterious to the account holder and to the banking system, and that the authorities must avoid overbroad restrictions that impede livelihood and everyday transactions. The court notes that in the present case the requisitions lacked any specific amount, seeking a full freeze of all funds in the account, which would unduly hamper the petitioner’s ability to operate financially. Nevertheless, recognizing the bank’s practical incapacity to process accounts without precise instructions, the court adopts a measured approach aimed at protecting both the investigation and the rights of the account holder. Relying on the Dr. Sajeer framework, the court disposes of the writ petition with a structured set of directions intended to calibrate the freeze while ensuring operational banking activity for the petitioner. The directions compel the Bank to seek a defined amount to be frozen, limit the freeze to that amount if specified, provide a two-month window for information, and offer an eight-month provisional alternative with a right to revisit the matter thereafter, thereby balancing investigative needs with fundamental rights.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that a blanket, indefinite freeze without a defined amount is detrimental to the account holder and to the livelihood of the petitioner, and that a freeze must be limited to the amount required for the investigation, with reference to the principles laid down in Dr. Sajeer (supra).

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend for maintaining the freeze as necessitated by the police requisitions to safeguard the investigation, while recognizing the need to calibrate the freeze in light of the bank’s operational constraints.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India2024 (1) KLT 826PositiveThe court relies on and extends the directions already laid down in Dr. Sajeer to avoid blanket, indefinite freezes and to ensure that freezes are specified and limited, preserving rights while protecting the investigation.

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 Jaleel v. Union of India & others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 7017 OF 2024` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` JALEEL, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. KASI GURIKKAL, GURIKKAL PARAMBATH, KONOTH ROAD, AZHIYUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673309. ``` ``` BY ADV VISHNUPRASAD NAIR ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY, PIN – 110001.` - `2 INDIAN CYBERCRIME COORDINATION CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO 5TH FLOOR, NDCC-II BUILDING, JAI SINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001.` - `3 THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, RBI, BAKERY JUNCTION, NANDAVANAM, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN – 695033.` - `4 THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., MAHE BRANCH (FDRL0001652), AZAHDHI BUILDING, STATUE JUNCTION, PONDICHERRY - REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN – 673310.` - `5 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695010.` - `6 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOZHIKODE RURAL CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE RURAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673001.` ``` WP(C) NO. 7017 OF 2024 ``` ``` -2- ``` ``` BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU, DSGI SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 7017 OF 2024 ``` ``` -3- ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` In matters relating to the freezing of accounts, this Court has already delivered a judgment inDr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of ``` ``` India [2024 (1) KLT 826]. ``` ``` 2.In the aforesaid judgment, certain ``` ``` directions were issued to the respective ``` ``` Banks, as also the Police Authorities, to ``` ``` continue the freeze for a certain period of ``` ``` time and only to the extent which was ``` ``` requisitioned by the Police. ``` ``` 3.However, what makes this case ``` ``` different from the one that was considered by ``` ``` this Court in the aforesaid judgment, is that ``` ``` the requisitions received by the Bank are ``` ``` stated to contain no particular amount, but seek a complete and blanket debit freeze of ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 7017 OF 2024` ``` -4- ``` ``` all the amounts in credit therein. ``` ``` 4.The legal issues and the imperatives involved have already been discussed by this Court in Dr.Sajeer(supra). A blanket freeze indefinitely, and without any period of time being stipulated by the Police, is certainly deleterious, not only to the account holders but also to the system as a whole; and the view in this regard of this Court is clearly ``` ``` reflected in Dr.Sajeer (supra). ``` ``` 5.However, since the Bank is now ``` ``` incapacitated from allowing the operation of the account of the petitioner because the ``` ``` requisition issued to them do not contain any particular amount, I am certain that this ``` ``` Court is enjoined to deal with this matter, sufficientlyprotectingboththe ``` ``` investigation, as also the account holders. I ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 7017 OF 2024` ``` -5- ``` ``` am persuaded to such course because, the blanket freeze of an account, if it is not imperatively necessary, will be an affront to ``` ``` the rights of the account holders and ``` ``` impinges even their right to livelihood, ``` ``` since, in this era, everyone relies upon ``` ``` banking transactions as the primary source. ``` ``` In the afore circumstances, following ``` ``` Dr.Sajeer(supra), I dispose of this writ ``` ``` petition with the following directions: ``` ``` (a) The respondent Bank is directed to ``` ``` immediately issue a request to the Investigation Authority/Police Authority and ``` ``` seek the amount which is required to be kept ``` ``` in freeze or held in lien in the account of the petitioner. This shall be done by the Bank within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 7017 OF 2024` ``` -6- ``` ``` (b) In the event that the Investigating Officer/Police Authority responds to the afore requisition and mentions a particular amount, as being the sum that is required to be kept frozen or held in lien, then the ``` ``` respondent Bank will confine the freeze/lien ``` ``` to such an extent and allow the petitioner/account holder to deal with his account and transact therein beyond that limit. ``` ``` (c) On the contrary, if no information is ``` ``` receivedfromthePolice ``` ``` Authority/Investigating officer within a ``` ``` period of two months from the date on which the afore requisition was made by the respondent Bank, then they will allow the petitioner/account holder to transact fully in his account, notwithstanding the debit ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 7017 OF 2024` ``` -7- ``` ``` freeze requisition, subject to any further ``` ``` information to be received from the Police Authority/Investigating Officer in future. ``` - `(d) As an alternative, if the response` ``` from the Police Authority/Investigating ``` ``` Officer is that the entire account be frozen ``` ``` for any reason that is mentioned therein, thentheBankwillinformthe ``` ``` petitioner/account holder accordingly and ``` ``` continue the freeze in such a manner for a ``` ``` further period of eight months thereafter. ``` ``` (e)If, after a period of eight months, ``` ``` the requisition made by the Police ``` ``` Authorities - either to a particular sum or ``` ``` the full amount in the account of the account holder - is not withdrawn, then the ``` ``` petitioner/account holder will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 7017 OF 2024 ``` ``` -8- which purpose, all contentions in this writ petition are reserved to him to be impelled in future. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` akv ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 7017 OF 2024 ``` ``` -9- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7017/2024` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/1/2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER'S CURRENT ACCOUNT DATED 30/1/2024 ```