High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed with directions: confine ...

Mukkam Megala Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society Ltd v. Bank Manager, IDBI Bank, et al.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 8659 OF 2025

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2025-03-28
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is ordered accordingly. The 1st respondent bank is directed to confine the freezing order to the amount mentioned in the police order; the police shall inform the bank whether the freezing will continue and for what duration, and the bank must comply with such information accordingly. If no information is received, the petitioner may approach the court again. The bank and petitioner must serve a copy of this judgment on the concerned police officer and retain proof of service. The police must inform whether seizure of the account has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate; if not reported within the given timeframe, the bank shall lift the debit freeze or remove the lien within two months from the copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed with directions: confine the freezing to the specified amount; police to inform continuation; bank to act on information; if no information, petitioner may reapproach the court; police to inform judicial reporting; two-month window for lifting/removal of lien if no compliance information is received; service of judgment to concerned officers to be completed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Mukkam Megala Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society Ltd (No: D-2890)

Respondents

  • Bank Manager, IDBI Bank, KoottoLi Branch, Oriental Building, Kottooli, Mavoor Rd, Calicut (Dist.), 673016
  • Station House Officer, Pune City Cyber Police Station, Police Ground, Opp Rahul Theatre, Police Headquarters, Shivajinagar, Pune, Maharashtra, 411005
  • Station House Officer, Sarojini Nagar Police Station, National Highway 25, Shanti Nagar, Sarojini Nagar
  • Station House Officer, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram Muthulingam St, New Market, West Tambaram, Tambaram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600045
  • Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Police Station Ernakulam Rural Cyber Crime Police Station, Kochi, Infopark, Kochi, 682042
  • Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Police Station Ambala Range, Ambala Cantt, Haryana, 133001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • V.S. Mansoor
  • • Akhil Binoy
  • • Ahmed Mizwar V.P.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition filed in the Kerala High Court by Mukkam Megala Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society Ltd seeks to lift the freezing of its bank account No. 1072102000006569 by the first respondent, IDBI Bank. The petitioner contends that the freezing, effected under police requisitions, is illegal and arbitrary and that the bank should permit normal transaction beyond any provisional limits. The bank’s stand is that the debit freeze was lifted but a lien remains as per police requisitions; the Police have registered Crime No. 80/2023. The Government Pleader and counsel for the bank inform that the freeze is connected to ongoing investigations. In considering earlier, related authorities, the Court relies on Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) and subsequent Kerala and Karnataka cases, including Nazeer K.T v. Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768), to frame a coherent approach. The judgment emphasizes that freezing should be confined to the amount stated in police orders, and banks must await police clarification on continued freezing within prescribed timelines. It also directs police to report whether seizure has been reported to the Magistrate and mandates lifting or continuation of the freeze, with a two-month window if no information is received. The order culminates in directing compliance with these principles and disposing of the petition accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Cr.P.C. in revised form)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the bank’s freezing of the account was illegal and arbitrary since a bank under police requisitions should not link or freeze funds beyond the scope of the order. It seeks immediate lifting of the debit freeze and removal of any lien so that the account holder can operate freely. Citing Dr. Sajeer v. RBI and Nazeer K.T v. Federal Bank Ltd, the petitioner urges that banks confine freezes to amounts specified and require police confirmation for any continuation, within reasonable time limits, failing which the petitioner should be free to approach the court again. The petition asserts that the police must promptly inform banks about compliance with Section 102 Cr.P.C. and reporting to the Magistrate, and that failure to report should not unjustly penalize the account holder.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the freeze is a lawful measure to safeguard pending investigations and that the bank’s lien on the account may persist beyond a debit freeze. They maintain that the police requisitions authorise the freeze and that it is subject to police guidance on continued operation. They highlight Crime No. 80/2023 and the necessity to balance investigative needs with the petitioner’s banking rights. The Government Pleader likely supports maintaining the freeze pending investigation while ensuring due process and regulatory compliance.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India2024 (1) KLT 826PositiveThe Court explicitly relies on the Dr. Sajeer decision for its directions, adopting and applying its principles to confine freezes to specified amounts and to coordinate action with police authorities.
Nazeer K.T v. Subsequently, Manager, Federal Bank Ltd2024 KHC OnLine 768PositiveCourt aligns with Nazeer K.T’s reasoning on banking freezes and police reporting, applying similar safeguards and timeline-based directions.
State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy(1999) 7 SCC 685PositiveCited for interpretation of Section 102 Cr.P.C. and its relevance to reporting and seizure procedures in bank accounts.
Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat(2018) 2 SCC 372PositiveCited to support the interpretation of seizure reporting requirements under S.102 Cr.P.C. and its impact on bank freezes.
Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others(2024) SCC OnLine SC 895PositiveCited as precedent in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of seizure reporting and related procedural safeguards.

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 Mukkam Megala Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society Ltd v. Bank Manager, IDBI Bank, et al. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

2025:KER:26826 **WP(C) NO. 8659 OF 2025** **1** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **WP(C) NO. 8659 OF 2025** ## **PETITIONER:** **MUKKAM MEGALA MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD (NO: D-2890)** **YAMBU TOWER, AREACPODE ROAD, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - VISHNURAJ.K, SON OF. RAJAN, AGED :- 29 YEARS KUNNATH (H), NEELESWARAM (PO), KOZHIKODE(DIST),, PIN - 673602** **BY ADVS. V.S.MANSOOR AKHIL BINOY AHAMMED MIZWAR V.P.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE BANK MANAGER, IDBI BANK, KOOTTOLI BRANCH ORIENTAL BUILDING, KOTTOOLI, MAVOOR RD CALICUT (DIST.), PIN - 673016** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PUNE CITY CYBER POLICE STATION** - **POLICE GROUND, OPP RAHUL THEATRE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA, [ EMAIL:- CRIMECYBER.PUNE@NIC.IN], PIN - 411005** - **3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER SAROJINI NAGAR POLICE STATION** **NATIONAL HIGHWAY 25, SHANTI NAGAR, SAROJINI NAGAR,** 2025:KER:26826 **WP(C) NO. 8659 OF 2025** **2** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN - 226023** - **4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH TAMBARAM MUTHULINGAM ST, NEW MARKET, WEST TAMBARAM, TAMBARAM, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600045** - **5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM RURAL CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION KOCHI, EXPRESS WAY ROAD, OPPOSITE FOUR POINTS HOTEL BY SHERATON, INFOPARK, PO, KOCHI, PIN - 682042** - **6 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION AMBALA RANGE AMABAL CANT 2ND FLOOR, ADJOINING JAIN SODA WATER RESTAURANT, UPSTAIRS JEWELLERY SHOWROOM, AMBALA CANTT, HARYANA, PIN - 133001** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE SC SMT R REMA** ## **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION** **ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE** **FOLLOWING:** 2025:KER:26826 **WP(C) NO. 8659 OF 2025** **3** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## JUDGMENT ## **Dated this the 28[th] day of March, 2025** The writ petition is filed to direct the 1[st] respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.1072102000006569. 2.The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 1[st] respondent bank. The petitioner states that the 1[st] respondent 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, this writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the 5[th] respondent has already registered Crime No.80/2023. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent 2025:KER:26826 **WP(C) NO. 8659 OF 2025** **4** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** bank submitted that the debit freezing of the petitioner's bank account has been lifted. However, lien on the petitioner's bank account has been marked pursuant to the requisitions from the police. The said submission is recorded. 6. In considering an identical matter, this Court ## in Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826] held as follows: “ 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.” 2025:KER:26826 **WP(C) NO. 8659 OF 2025** **5** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 7. this Court in Nazeer K.T v. Subsequently, Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768], case after concurring with the view in Dr.Sajeer's (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 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). 2025:KER:26826 **WP(C) NO. 8659 OF 2025** **6** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** (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. 8. I am in complete agreement with the views in Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T cases (supra). The above 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 2025:KER:26826 **WP(C) NO. 8659 OF 2025** **7** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 its 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 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. 2025:KER:26826 **8** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **WP(C) NO. 8659 OF 2025** The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm28/3/2025 2025:KER:26826 **9** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **WP(C) NO. 8659 OF 2025** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8659/2025** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1** - **A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BANKING STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF ACCOUNT NO: 1072102000006569 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P2** - **A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF COMPLAINT WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO: 21908230075781 RECEIVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P3 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF COMPLAINT WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO: 33108230123295 RECEIVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P4 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF COMPLAINT WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO: 32908230023324 RECEIVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** ## **Exhibit P5** - **A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF COMPLAINT WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO: 31508230010555 RECEIVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** ## **Exhibit P6** - **A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF COMPLAINT WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO: 31305230023502 RECEIVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P7** **A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 22/12/2023 IN WP(C) 41176/2023**