High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed with directions as state...

Muhammed Ameen R.C v. The Bank Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (Koduvally Branch) and The Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 41514 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2024-03-15
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed with directions: (a) Bank to request the Investigation Authority to specify the amount to be kept in freeze within one month; (b) if a particular amount is mentioned, freeze that amount and allow transactions beyond that limit; (c) if no information is received within two months, petitioner may transact fully in his account, subject to future information; (d) if the police indicate entire account freeze, the Bank will inform the petitioner and continue the freeze for up to eight months; (e) after eight months, if the requisition is not withdrawn, the petitioner may approach the Court again. The decision follows the doctrine in Dr. Sajeer and seeks to balance investigative needs with account holder rights.” ,
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed with directions as stated above (a–e) to regulate freeze of the account rather than a blanket, indefinite freeze; follows Dr. Sajeer (supra) for balancing investigation with livelihood rights.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Muhammed Ameen R.C

Respondents

  • The Bank Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (Koduvally Branch)
  • Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • V.S. Mansoor
  • • Akhil Binoy

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Mohan Jacob George
  • • P.V. Parvathy
  • • Reena Thomas
  • • Nigi George
  • • Ananthu V. Lal

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition before the Kerala High Court concerns the freezing of the petitioner Muhammed Ameen R.C.’s bank account by the Federal Bank Ltd under police requisition. The court, led by Hon'ble Justice Devan Ramachandran, recalls its earlier decision in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826), where it cautioned against blanket freezes and emphasised that freezes must be calibrated to the police requisition to avoid harm to the account holder’s livelihood and the banking system. In the present case, the police requisitions are said to contain no specific amount and request a blanket debit freeze of all amounts, which is contrary to the earlier rationale. The judge reaffirms that indefinite blanket freezes are deleterious, and that a measured approach is required to harmonise investigation needs with fundamental rights. The decision provides structured directions: (a) the bank must, within one month, request the Investigation Authority to specify the amount to be kept in freeze or lien; (b) if a specific amount is mentioned, the freeze shall be limited to that sum; (c) if no information is received within two months, the petitioner may transact fully, subject to future police information; (d) as an alternative, if the police require entire account freeze, the bank will inform the petitioner and continue the freeze for up to eight months; and (e) after eight months, if no withdrawal of the requisition occurs, the petitioner may approach the Court again. The petition is disposed of with these directions, balancing investigative needs with the right to livelihood and normal banking operations.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that a blanket freeze, without any specified amount, cripples the account holder’s ability to transact and adversely affects livelihood. Relying on Dr. Sajeer (supra), the petitioner seeks a measured freeze aligned with police requisition, and for the bank to allow normal banking operations unless a specific sum is directed to be frozen. The argument emphasizes balancing investigative needs with fundamental rights to livelihood and the freedom to transact.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that police requisitions may warrant a freeze to preserve the integrity of an investigation, even if a precise amount is not specified, arguing that a blanket freeze could be warranted if security concerns or ongoing investigations require it. They rely on the necessity to maintain control over the account to prevent tampering with funds during inquiry.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India2024 (1) KLT 826PositiveCited as controlling precedent to limit blanket freezes and to direct a measured approach to freezing, consistent with the earlier judgment in Dr. Sajeer.

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 Muhammed Ameen R.C v. The Bank Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (Koduvally Branch) and The Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad 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. 41514 OF 2023` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` MUHAMMED AMEEN R.C, AGED 28 YEARS, SON OF RAZAK R.C, RAROTHCHALIL HOUSE, KODUVALLY P.O, KOZHIKODE(DIST.), PIN – 673572. ``` ``` BY ADVS. V.S.MANSOOR AKHIL BINOY ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1THE BANK MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD KODUVALLY BRANCH, IRIS TOWER, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE(DIST), PIN – 673572. 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, LB STADIUM RD, BAND COLONY, ADARSH NAGAR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA [EMAIL:- CYBERCELL2-HYD@TSPOLICE.GOV.IN], PIN – 500004. ``` ``` BY ADVS. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE P.V.PARVATHY (P-41)(K/000036/1991) REENA THOMAS(R-364) NIGI GEORGE(K/1169/2012) ANANTHU V.LAL(K/001233/2022) ``` ``` 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. 41514 OF 2023 ``` ``` -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. 41514 OF 2023` ``` -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. I ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 41514 OF 2023` ``` -4- ``` ``` 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. 41514 OF 2023` ``` -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 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. 41514 OF 2023` ``` -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. 41514 OF 2023 ``` ``` -7- 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. 41514 OF 2023 ``` ``` -8- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41514/2023` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT P1A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF ACCOUNT NO: 10590100169646 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD: 12/10/2023 RECEIVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FROM 2ND RESPONDENT ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DTD: 18/10/2023, SENT BY1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DTD: 19/10/2023, SENT BY1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER ```