High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with directions (a)-(e)

JASNAMOL J S v. Grievance Officer, National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, Kerala Region; Federal Bank, Haripad Branch

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 7622 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: (a) The bank shall immediately issue a request to the Investigation Authority/Police to specify the amount to be frozen and shall do so within one month; (b) If a particular amount is stated, the bank will confine the freeze to that amount, allowing the petitioner to deal with her account beyond that limit; (c) If no information is received within two months, the petitioner shall be entitled to transact fully in her account, subject to any future information from the Police; (d) Alternatively, if the Police state the entire account should be frozen for any stated reason, the bank shall inform the petitioner and continue the freeze for eight months; (e) If after eight months the requisition is not withdrawn, the petitioner may approach this Court again; all contentions in the petition are reserved for future proceedings.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with directions (a)-(e)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • JASNAMOL J S

Respondents

  • Grievance Officer, National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, Kerala Region (represented by Additional Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram)
  • Federal Bank, Haripad Branch (represented by its Branch Manager)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • D. Feroze
  • • T. S. Krishnendu
  • • Adarsh A.
  • • Janet Varghese

Counsels for Respondents

  • • S. Manu, DSGP
  • • Mohan Jacob George, SC
  • • Paulochan Antony, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges a blanket and indefinite freeze of funds in the petitioner’s Federal Bank account, imposed under police requisitions for cyber‑crime investigations. The Kerala High Court recalls its earlier decision in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826), where it warned against blanket freezing and stressed limited freezes tied to specific amounts. The bank had refused to permit operation of the account because the police requisition did not specify a monetary amount, seeking to freeze “all the amounts” in credit. The court emphasizes that while investigations require protective measures, an indiscriminate freeze is deleterious to the account holder and to the banking system, impinging on livelihood. The judge notes the bank’s incapacity to operate the account due to lack of specified amount and states that the court must balance investigation needs with constitutional rights. Following the Dr. Sajeer approach, the court directs the bank to obtain from the Investigating Authority a specific amount to be frozen, within one month, and to limit the freeze to that amount if such information is provided. If no information is received within two months, the petitioner may transact fully, subject to future police information. As an alternative, the entire account may be frozen for up to eight months, with renewal or reversal depending on police response. The petition is disposed of with these directions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that freezing the entire account without specifying an amount is arbitrary and deprives the account holder of livelihood; it harms the functioning of the individual and the banking system; the court should ensure the freeze is limited to the amount necessary for investigation; the mandate from Dr. Sajeer to avoid blanket freezes; The petitioner seeks a direction to the bank to obtain the precise amount from the Investigation Authority and to allow normal operation unless an amount is frozen.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend the bank must comply with police requisitions and preserve the freeze as an investigative tool; indefinite freeze is necessary to secure the proceeds pending investigation; the court should balance investigative needs with rights, but caution against undermining the investigation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India2024 (1) KLT 826PositiveCited as supportive authority for the deleterious nature of blanket freezes and to limit freezes; the court notes the view reflected in this earlier decision.

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 JASNAMOL J S v. Grievance Officer, National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, Kerala Region; Federal Bank, Haripad Branch 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. 7622 OF 2024 ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` JASNAMOL J S, AGED 29 YEARS, W/O SHAMEER A, KOTTARATHIL THEKKATHIL, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690515. ``` ``` BY ADVS. D.FEROZE T.S.KRISHNENDU ADARSH A. JANET VARGHESE ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1GRIEVANCE OFFICER, NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL, KERALA REGION, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. 2FEDERAL BANK, HARIPAD BRANCH MOOLAYIL MINERVA BUILDING HARIPAD REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN – 690514. ``` ``` BY ADD. S.MANU, DSGP SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SC SRI.PAULOCHAN ANTONY, 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. 7622 OF 2024 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## `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. 7622 OF 2024` ``` -3- ``` ``` 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. ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 7622 OF 2024` ``` -4- ``` ``` I 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. 7622 OF 2024` ``` -5- ``` ``` (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 her 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 her account, notwithstanding the debit ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 7622 OF 2024` ``` -6- ``` ``` 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. 7622 OF 2024 ``` ``` -7- which purpose, all contentions in this writ petition are reserved to her to be impelled in future. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` akv ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 7622 OF 2024 ``` ``` -8- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7622/2024` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT P1 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING THE CRIME DETAILS TO THE PETITIONER ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION FORWARDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER WITH REGARD TO THE CRIME DETAILS ALONG WITH THE DISPUTED TRANSACTION DETAILS ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THEPETITIONERWITHA/CNO 10570100290576 WITH FEDERAL BANK ```