High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-03-27Writ petition disposed with directions to confi...

SHAMNA BEEVI SAJU v Union of India, Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre, Reserve Bank of India, Indian Bank

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 8296 OF 2025

Neutral Citation:2025:KER:27355

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S.Dias
Judgment Date: 2025-03-27
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is ordered directing the 4th respondent bank to confine the freezing of the petitioner’s account to the amount specified in the police order, enable transaction beyond that limit, and require the Police Authorities to inform the Bank whether continued freezing is necessary and for what period. If no such information is received, the petitioner may approach the Court again. The bank and petitioner must serve a copy of this judgment on the concerned officer to facilitate compliance. Additionally, the bank must lift the debit freeze if the police fail to provide timely information under the directions, within the two-month window specified, with further steps to be taken as directed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed with directions to confine the freeze to the specified amount, require police information for continuation, and permit petitioners to approach the Court if no timely information is provided; two-month timeline for police compliance and service of judgment to relevant authorities; bank to lift debit freeze if no timely information is received.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SHAMNA BEEVI SAJU

Respondents

UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI
INDIAN CYBERCRIME COORDINATION CENTRE
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
INDIAN BANK

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T.S. Sarath Manu
• R. Rajesh (Varkala)
• M. Kiranlal
• Sameer M Nair
• Sabikh Mohammed
• V. S. Sailakshmi Menon
• Aashi K. Shajan
• Minza Fathima Salim

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petition seeks a directions to lift the debit freeze imposed on the petitioner’s bank account bearing No. 6803801256 by the 4th respondent bank, which freeze was effected following a requisition from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner, holder of the frozen account, contends that the freezing is arbitrary and excessive in scope, depriving her of access to funds and business transactions. The dispute centers on the amount allegedly involved (Rs. 5,905) and whether the freeze should be confined strictly to the amount specified in the police requisition or extended beyond it. The petition relies on judgments such as Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024) and Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024) to argue that freezes should be limited to the amount specified and that police authorities must inform banks about the continuation of the freeze within a defined period, enabling banks to act accordingly. The court acknowledges the relevant provisions of law, notably Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), and cites Supreme Court authorities like State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen to uphold a protective framework for account holders when seizures are involved. The judgment, however, ultimately orders a measured approach consistent with the cited precedents, directing the bank to confine the freeze to the specified amount, require police information thereafter, and provide avenues for relief if information is not furnished in time.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the freezing of her bank account was arbitrary and excessive, arguing that it should be limited to the amount specified in the police requisition rather than freezing the entire balance. She seeks immediate lifting of the debit freeze and restoration of access to funds to enable normal transactions. The case relies on Dr. Sajeer v. RBI and Nazeer K.T. v. Federal Bank Ltd to argue that banks must confine the freeze to the stipulated amount and that police authorities must inform banks within a defined period about continued seizure, with the bank maintaining compliance with such timelines.

Contentions of Respondents

The 4th respondent bank submits that the freeze concerns Rs. 5,905 and has been effected pursuant to a police requisition. The bank contends that freezing is legitimate under the requisition and that the amount in dispute justifies continued restrictions until police directions or further notice are received. The bank emphasizes its duty to comply with lawful requisitions and to maintain the integrity of ongoing investigations.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India	2024 (1) KLT 826	Positive	The court adopts Dr. Sajeer’s principle that freezing should be confined to the amounts specified in police orders and directs banks to act accordingly.
Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd	2024 KHC OnLine 768	Positive	The decision aligns with Nazeer K.T to extend the principle of limited freezing and timely adjudication in line with Sajeer.
State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy	[(1999) 7 SCC 685]	Positive	Cited for interpretation of Section 102 Cr.P.C. and its modern application, supporting the court’s approach to seizure reporting and bank action.
Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat	[(2018) 2 SCC 372]	Positive	Cited as a Supreme Court reference for interpreting Section 102 and seizure reporting requirements.
Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others	[2024 SCC OnLine SC 895]	Positive	Cited to reinforce the interpretation of Section 102 in the context of seizure reporting and bank 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 SHAMNA BEEVI SAJU v Union of India, Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre, Reserve Bank of India, Indian Bank 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. 8296 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:27355 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947** ## **WP(C) NO. 8296 OF 2025** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SHAMNA BEEVI SAJU AGED 40 YEARS W/O- MOHAMMED, 35/121, SHIBU NIVAS, PUTHEN ROAD JUNCTION, VALLAKADAVU P. O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695008** **BY ADVS. T.S.SARATH MANU RAMACHANDRAN R.RAJESH (VARKALA) M.KIRANLAL SAMEER M NAIR SABIKH MOHAMMED V.S SAILAKSHMI MENON AASHI K. SHAJAN MINZA FATHIMA SALIM M.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY HM@MHA.GOV.IN, PIN - 110001** - **2 INDIAN CYBERCRIME COORDINATION CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO 5TH FLOOR, NDCC-II BUILDING, JAI SINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI. CYBERDOST@MHA.GOV.IN, PIN - 110001** **3 THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, RBI, BAKERY JUNCTION, NANAVANAM, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA. CMS.BOTRIVANDRUM@RBI.ORG.IN, PIN - 695033** WP(C) NO. 8296 OF 2025 2 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27355 **4 INDIAN BANK** **REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, ATTAKULANGARA - ENCHAKKAL RD, SUBHASH NAGAR, EANCHAKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA. ENCHAKKAL@INDIANBANK.CO.IN, PIN - 695024** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA SC SRI BINOY VASUDEVAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO. 8296 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:27355 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **C.S.DIAS, J. --------------------------------------WP(C) No.8296 OF 2025** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of March, 2025** ## **JUDGMENT** The writ petition is filed to direct the 4[th] respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.6803801256. 2. The petitioner’s case is that, she is the holder of the above bank account with the 4[th] respondent bank. The said account has been debit freezed by the 4[th] respondent pursuant to the requisition received from the 2[nd] respondent. The action of the 4[th] respondent is arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.5,905/-. The said submission is recorded. 5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in **Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India** [2024 (1) KLT 826] WP(C) NO. 8296 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:27355 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## 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], after concurring with the view in **Dr.Sajeer's** case (supra) WP(C) NO. 8296 OF 2025 5 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27355 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 within one month ofreceipt of a copy of the judgment, the bank shall lift the debit freeze imposed on the petitioner's account. WP(C) NO. 8296 OF 2025 6 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27355 (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 4[th] 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 her 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. 8296 OF 2025 7 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27355 (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 her contentions in this Writ Petition are left open and reserved to her, 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 WP(C) NO. 8296 OF 2025 8 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27355 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/27.03.25 WP(C) NO. 8296 OF 2025 9 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27355 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8296/2025** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER**