Safiya Malik

The Kerala High Court Single Bench of Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim directed that, in petitions seeking de-freezing of bank accounts, the Station House Officer of the police station having jurisdiction over the petitioner’s place of residence must be made a party and ordered the Registry to ensure such impleadment before numbering these matters, until further orders. The Court issued the direction while considering a writ plea by an account holder seeking de-freezing of a bank account frozen in connection with alleged financial cyber fraud and police-related requisitions received by banks. The order noted concerns about misuse of writ jurisdiction through false petitions and forged documents in de-freezing matters and required impleadment to help verify that such pleas are filed by the stated petitioners.

The writ petition was filed by an account holder seeking a direction to the respondent bank to de-freeze his bank account, which had been subjected to debit restrictions in connection with suspected financial cyber fraud. The petitioner contended that the freezing of the account adversely affected his ability to carry out banking operations and claimed that the amount credited to the account arose from genuine business transactions. The bank had acted on requisitions received through police authorities and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, which sometimes did not disclose details of the investigating police station.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs High Courts To Fast-Track UAPA Trials Involving Reverse Burden Of Proof, Monitor 5+ Year Pending Cases

The dispute arose from the increasing number of writ petitions filed before the High Court seeking de-freezing of bank accounts frozen either on police requisitions or on the bank’s own suspicion. The Court examined the manner in which such petitions were being instituted, the nature of pleadings, and the absence of adequate factual details regarding the petitioner’s business activities and transactions.

The statutory context involved the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the Court considering whether discretionary relief should be granted in matters involving alleged facilitation of cyber fraud.

The Court recorded that “This Writ Petition is filed seeking direction to the Respondent/Bank to defreeze the bank account of the Petitioner. Every day, this Court has been dealing with nearly 200 cases involving financial cyber fraud with respect to bank accounts. Sometimes, Banks freeze the accounts based on the Requisitions received by the Banks from Police Authorities, and sometimes the Banks freeze the accounts based on their own suspicion.”

It observed that “The Requisitions from the Police Authorities usually include for full debit freeze and/or for full credit freeze, or for debit freeze/hold/lien for specified amounts. Several Requisitions are received from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCCRP). Some of those Requisitions are issued without showing the details of the Police Station that is to conduct the investigation of the crime.”

The Court stated that “In most of the Writ Petitions, the prayer of the Petitioner is to de-freeze his account, stating that he has no involvement in the alleged crime, that he got part of the amount involved in the crime out of a genuine business transaction without knowledge of the crime. Surprisingly, in most of the Writ Petitions, the details of such a genuine transaction, or even the nature of the business of the petitioner, are not stated.” It recorded that “Banks report huge numbers of transactions involving Crores of Rupees within a short span after opening the accounts, which do not match the details furnished to the Banks by the Account Holders.”

The Court observed that “Even if the Petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs prayed by him based on the legal contentions advanced by him, still this Court has ample discretion to deny the reliefs while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India considering the totality of the circumstances, when this Court has reason to believe that the petitioner has been operating his account to facilitate cyber fraud.” It stated that “It appears that some of the Writ Petitions are AI-generated and do not contain the basic material facts.”

The Court recorded that “This Court believes that the jurisdiction of this Court is being misused by the persons regularly involved in financial cyber fraud, even without knowledge of the Petitioners shown in the Writ Petition, by producing forged documents.”

Also Read: Onus On Assessee To Prove Puducherry Use Of Vehicle: Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeal, Upholds ₹15.37 Lakh Motor Vehicle Tax Demand On Puducherry-Registered Car

The Court held: “This Court deems it necessary to direct the impleadment of the Police Station which covers the area of the address of the Petitioner, which is shown in the Writ Petition, in all these Writ Petitions to confirm that the filing of the Writ Petitions is by the Petitioners themselves and also to get the details of the Petitioners in order to enable this Court to form a prima facie opinion.

“The Registry of this Court is directed to ensure that the SHO of the Police Station which covers the area of the Petitioner’s address is made a party in all the Writ Petitions pertaining to the de-freezing of accounts, before numbering the same, until further orders.”

The writ petition was directed to be listed for further consideration on 15.12.2025.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: M/s. Muhammed Zain Shaheer P.P., Shibu Babu, Anish M.M., Arun Kumar C.S., Riyas B.S., Dhanya P. Palan, Vimal Kumar A.V., Muhammed Alimankathodi

Case Title: Blue Star Aluminium Door House v. Federal Bank Ltd. & Anr.                 

Case Number: WP(C) No. 43123 of 2025

Bench: Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim