BY AD vs LAYA MARY JOSEPH

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 banks to lift the freezing of the petitioners’ bank accounts bearing Nos.210801001034, 50100664380720,

2. The 1st petitioner is the holder of the first bank account with the 1st respondent bank. The 2nd petitioner, the wife of the 1st petitioner, is the holder of the two other accounts with the respondents 2 and 3 banks. The petitioners’ contend that the respondents 1 to 3 banks have frozen the petitioners’ bank accounts pursuant to the requisition received from the police. The action of the respondent 1 to 3 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 banks.

4. The respective learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 3 submitted that, the disputed amount in respect to the 1st petitioner's bank account with the WP(C) No.2667 of 2025 4 1st respondent bank and the disputed amount is Rs.58,661/-, in respect of the 2nd petitioner’s bank account with the 2nd respondent bank is Rs.36,000/- and with the 3rd respondent bank is Rs.19,321/-. 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] 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.” WP(C) No.2667 of 2025 5 Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v.

6. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768], 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 WP(C) No.2667 of 2025 6 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.”

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 respondents 1 to 3 Banks are directed to confine the freezing order of the petitioners’ bank accounts only to the extent of the amount mentioned in the order/requisitions issued by the Police Authorities. The above exercise shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioner to transact through their accounts beyond the said limit; (ii). The Police Authorities are hereby directed to inform the Banks as to whether freezing of the petitioners’ accounts will be required to be continued even in the afore manner; and if so, for what further time; (iii) 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 WP(C) No.2667 of 2025 7 may be; (iv). If, however, no information or intimation is received by the Banks in terms of direction (ii) above, the petitioners will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all the contentions in this Writ Petition are left open and reserved to them, to impel in future; (v) The jurisdictional police officers shall inform the Banks whether the seizure of the bank accounts have 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 Banks within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Banks shall lift the debit freeze or remove the lien, as the case may be, on the petitioners’ bank accounts; (vi) In order to enable the Police to comply with the above direction, the Banks, as well as the petitioners, shall forthwith serve a copy of this judgment to the jurisdictional officer and retain proof of such service. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. AJ/26.03.2025 Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE WP(C) No.2667 of 2025 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2667/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CHAIN OF EMAIL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND 4TH RESPONDENT ON 08.10.2024, 17.10.2024 AND 20.10.2024 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 09.10.2024 REGISTERED AS CRIME NO.1007/2024 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION TRUE COPY OF THE CHAIN OF EMAIL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE 2ND PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT BANK ON 21.10.2024, 22.10.2024 AND 23.10.2024 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 22.10.2024 BETWEEN 2ND PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 16.01.2025 RECEIVED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2025 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, CUDDALORE IN CMP NO.14476/2024 RELATED TO CRIME NO.180/2024 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR ACCOUNT NUMBER 22910240077712 MAINTAINED WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.07.2024 TO 01.01.2025