High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-03-24Writ petition disposed of with directions as st...

NH Fruits through its Proprietor Muhammed Swalih T M v Federal Bank Ltd and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025

Neutral Citation:2025:KER:25185

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S.DIAS
Judgment Date: 2025-03-24
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is ordered accordingly. The court directs: (i) the first respondent bank shall confine the freezing order of the petitioner’s account to the extent of the amount mentioned in the police order/requisition; (ii) the police authorities shall inform the bank whether freezing will continue and, if so, for what period, within a defined time; (iii) on receiving such information, banks shall either continue the freeze for the authorized period or withdraw it; (iv) if no information is received, the petitioner may move this Court again with all contentions open; (v) police officers must inform the bank whether seizure has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate; if not reported within two months of judgment, the bank shall lift the debit freeze. The judgment shall be served on the concerned officers with proof of service. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions as stated above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

NH Fruits through its Proprietor Muhammed Swalih T M

Respondents

Federal Bank represented by its Branch Manager, Edakkara Branch, Kerala
Station House Officer Deen Dayal Upadhyay Soochna Parisar Police Station, Lucknow
Station House Officer NEB Police Station, Subhash Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan (added as Adl. 3rd Respondent)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv Sadiqali M

Case Synopsis & Summary

The writ petition challenges the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account no. 15570200003734 by the first respondent bank, allegedly pursuant to a police requisition. The petitioner, a business holder, contends that the debit freeze is arbitrary and unjust since there is no showing that the account holder is involved in any criminal activity. The case relies on earlier decisions that guided freezing banks’ funds; the court is urged to limit the freeze strictly to the amount specified in the police requisition and to allow transactions beyond that limit to enable the petitioner to operate. The Bank’s counsel submits that the disputed amount is Rs. 3,18,000 and that the freeze is based on police requisition; the matter has triggered judicial directions in Dr. Sajeer v. RBI and Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd, which stress timely reporting of seizures. The court notes the relevance of Section 102 Cr.P.C. (now Section 106 BNSS 2023) and its interpretation in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen, as well as the need for police to inform banks and for banks to act accordingly. The judgment ultimately disposes of the petition with specific directions to balance freezing with the petitioner’s ability to transact.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023)Cr.P.C. Section 102(3)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the freezing of its bank account by the first respondent is arbitrary and contrary to principles governing freezing orders, especially where the account holder is not shown to be involved in any crime. The freeze was issued on the basis of a police requisition from the third respondent, and the bank is urged to confine the freeze to the amount mentioned and permit transactions beyond that limit to preserve business operations. The petitioner relies on Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India and Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd, as well as statutory directives under Cr.P.C. Section 102 (now 106 BNSS 2023) and judicial interpretations in Maharashtra v. Neogy, Teesta Setalvad, and Shento Varghese. The court is urged to provide a timely resolution to prevent indefinite debit freezes and to require police to report seizures to the jurisdictional Magistrate as mandated under Sub-section (3) of Section 102, with fixed timeframes for compliance.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent bank argues that the freeze corresponds to the amount in dispute (Rs 3,18,000) and was imposed on the basis of a police requisition; the bank is bound to act on police directions and will inform the bank if continued freezing is necessary, within the period specified. The bank also notes that the court’s prior decisions guide a measured approach, ensuring due process while maintaining the integrity of investigations. The police authorities are expected to provide timely information to the bank regarding continuation of the freeze and the need for further extension.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India	2024 (1) KLT 826	Positive	The decision is relied upon for limiting the freeze to the amounts mentioned and for timely reporting provisions.
Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd	2024 KHC OnLine 768	Positive	Court aligns with this view and adopts the approach to freezing and reporting.“
State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy	[(1999) 7 SCC 685]	Positive	Cited for interpretation of Section 102 Cr.P.C. and reporting requirements.
Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat	[(2018) 2 SCC 372]	Positive	Cited for interpretation of Section 102 Cr.P.C. principles.
Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others	[2024 SCC OnLine SC 895]	Positive	Cited to support directives on reporting seizures and time-bound actions.

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 NH Fruits through its Proprietor Muhammed Swalih T M v Federal Bank Ltd and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:25185 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947** **WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **NH FRUITS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MUHAMMED SWALIH T M AGED 29 YEARS S/O:MUHAMMEDALI T, THRIKKULAM HOUSE, POTHUKKALLU,BHOODANAM COLONY PO, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 679334** ## **BY ADV SADIQALI. M** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 FEDERAL BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, EDAKKARA BRANCH 1ST FLOOR, JOHN'S TOWER, OOTY ROAD, OPP. ALI SQUARE, EDAKKARA, KERALA., PIN - 679331** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY SOOCHNA PARISAR POLICE STATION , 16 PARK ROAD,LUCKNOW., PIN - 226001** - ***3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER NEB POLICE STATION, SUBHASH NAGAR, ANAND VIHAR, DAUDPUR, ALWAR, RAJASTHAN, 301001 IS IMPLEADED AS THE ADDL. 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 24.03.25 IN IA NO.1/2025.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SC SRI MOHAN JACOB GEORGE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:25185 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **C.S.DIAS, J. --------------------------------------WP(C) No. 1615 OF 2025** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of March, 2025** ## **JUDGMENT** The writ petition is filed to direct the 1[st] respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.15570200003734. 2. The petitioner’s case is that, it is the holder of the above bank account with the 1[st] respondent bank. The said account has been debit freezed by the 1[st] respondent pursuant to the requisition received from the 3[rd] respondent. The action of the 1[st] respondent is arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.3,18,000/-. The said submission is recorded. 5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025 3 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## 2025:KER:25185 **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.” 6. Subsequently, this Court in **Nazeer K.T v.** **Manager, Federal Bank Ltd** [2024 KHC OnLine 768], WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025 4 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:25185 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 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 WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025 5 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:25185 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 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 it's 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; WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:25185 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** (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 it's contentions in this Writ Petition are left open and reserved to the petitioner, 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; WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:25185 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** (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** rkc/24.03.25 WP(C) NO. 1615 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:25185 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1615/2025** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08-012025** **Exhibit P2** **A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER DATED 24-07-2023**