High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with directions to balance investig...

Shani Kumar v Union of India and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 8488 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2024-03-15
Court Decision / Holding
Dispose of WP(C) 8488/2024 with directions: (a) Bank to immediately issue a request to the Investigation Authority/Police and obtain the amount to be kept in freeze or lien within one month; (b) If a particular amount is stated, limit the freeze to that amount and allow the petitioner to transact beyond that limit; (c) If no information is received within two months, permit full transactions in the account subject to future information; (d) Alternatively, if the Police require the entire account to be frozen, continue the freeze for up to eight months and inform the petitioner accordingly; (e) If after eight months the requisition is not withdrawn, the petitioner may approach the court again; all contentions are reserved for future.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with directions to balance investigation needs and account-holders’ rights; writ petition disposed with specified directions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shani Kumar

Respondents

  • Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
  • Reserve Bank of India represented by its Governor, Head Office, Mumbai
  • National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (MHA Portal) represented by its Director, New Delhi
  • State Police Chief, Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Station House Officer, Marayoor Police Station, Idukki District
  • Punjab National Bank represented by its Authorized Officer, Greater Noida Branch, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. Parvathy
  • • Eldho N. Moncy
  • • Sriram R.B.
  • • Jince T. Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. S. Manu, DSGI
  • • Sri. Santheep Ankarath, SC
  • • Sri. Sunil Kumar KuriaKose, GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition concerns the freezing of bank accounts in the context of a police requisition. The Kerala High Court, relying on its earlier decision in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826), notes that a blanket debit freeze without a specific amount is deleterious to both the account holder and the banking system. In this case, the bank received a requisition that did not specify any particular sum and sought to freeze all amounts in the petitioner’s account. The court emphasizes that blanket, indefinite freezes infringe the right to livelihood and disrupt ordinary banking operations in a modern economy increasingly dependent on banking. Following the precedent in Dr. Sajeer, the judge disposes of the writ petition with structured directions to safeguard investigation needs while protecting account holders’ rights. The court directs the bank to promptly request the Investigation Authority/Police to specify the amount that must be frozen or held in lien, to be determined within one month from the judgment. If the Police indicate a particular amount, the freeze is to be limited to that sum, enabling the account holder to transact beyond that limit. If no information is received within two months, full transaction rights are to be restored, subject to future information. As an alternative, if the entire account must be frozen, the bank may maintain the freeze for up to eight months, after which the petitioner may approach the court again.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that a blanket freeze without a defined monetary limit is grossly prejudicial, infringing the account holder’s livelihood and fundamental banking rights. The requisition lacks a specified amount, rendering the freeze excessive and impractical. The petitioner seeks a measured approach that balances the investigation’s needs with the rights of the account holder, arguing for a freeze limited to the amount indicated by police or, if none is provided, for the account to function with necessary safeguards until specific directions are issued.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that freezing the account is a necessary instrument to preserve the integrity of the ongoing investigation. A blanket freeze without a defined amount may be the only way to prevent dissipation of funds and obstruct the investigation. The court is urged to adopt a framework that respects both the investigation’s needs and the account holder’s rights, with directions that allow the police-to-bank flow of information and facilitate a targeted freeze when an amount is specified.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India2024 (1) KLT 826PositiveThe judgment relies on Dr. Sajeer as a controlling authority, adopting its approach that blanket, indefinite freezes are deleterious and that freezes should be calibrated to the amount specified by police requisitions.

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 Shani Kumar v Union of India and Others 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. 8488 OF 2024` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` SHANI KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O BIJENDRA SINGH, A 10, AMIPUR BANGAR, GAUTAMBUDHA NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN – 203201. ``` ``` BY ADVS.P.PARVATHY ELDHO.N.MONCY SRIRAM R.B. JINCE T. THOMAS ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001.` - `2 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, HEAD OFFICE, MUMBAI, MAHARASTHRA, PIN – 400029.` - `3 NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL (MHA PORTAL) NATIONAL HIGHWAY - 8, MAHILAPUR, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN – 110037.` - `4 STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014.` - `5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MARAYOOR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN – 685620.` - `6 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, BHATTA GREATER NOIDA BRANCH, GREATER NOIDA, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN – 201301.` ``` BY ADVS.SRI.S.MANU, DSGI, SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, SC SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GP ``` ``` 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. 8488 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. 8488 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. I ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 8488 OF 2024` ``` -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. 8488 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 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. 8488 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. 8488 OF 2024 ``` ``` -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. 8488 OF 2024 ``` ``` -8- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8488/2024` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE COMPLAINT WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO. 21512230015165 EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.01.2024 (DATE INCORRECTLY TYPED AS 1.11.2024 IN THE LETTER) ```