Kerala High Court Sets Aside Order Directing Police To Investigate Man's Bank Account Over Large Credits

The Kerala High Court has set aside a Single Judge's direction to investigate a man's bank account after finding that no police officer had alleged his involvement in any crime.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji observed that the Single Judge could not have ordered an investigation solely on the basis of entries in the man's bank statement.

“None of the Police Officers on record imputes that the appellant is involved in any Crime; and, at best - at least as of now - the only insinuation appears to be that his account has entries of sums, which the creditors may have obtained as proceeds of Crime. This itself being only a presumption at this stage, an investigation cannot be ordered by this Court independently,” the Bench observed.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by Mohammad Irfan K.I. against a direction issued by a Single Judge while dismissing his plea to lift a freezing order on his State Bank of India (SBI) account. The freezing order had been issued by the Puducherry Cyber Crime Cell.

Irfan had explained that the disputed entries in his account represented amounts given to him by his cousin and her husband. Alternatively, he had sought to restrict the freezing order to those disputed amounts alone.

Before the Division Bench, counsel for Irfan argued that the Single Judge could have dismissed his writ petition but could not have ordered an investigation against him. He had already explained the source of the money, and no investigation was pending against him before either of the police authorities, counsel submitted.

Counsel appearing for SBI, informed the court that the bank had not received any information from either police authority about an investigation launched, initiated or pending against Irfan or his account. He clarified that the bank was only acting on the requisition received from the Puducherry police.

Senior Government Pleader appearing for the police authorities, also informed the Bench that the Puducherry police had not issued any letter implicating Irfan or his account. The freezing appeared to have followed six disputed entries in the account, she submitted.

The Bench noted that the Single Judge had ordered an investigation after noticing that large amounts had been credited to Irfan's account. However, none of the police officers had alleged that he was involved in any crime.

It therefore held that the direction to investigate Irfan in relation to other entries in his account could not be sustained.

On the freezing order, the Bench noted that the second respondent had clarified that the disputed amounts related only to six entries mentioned in the account statement produced by SBI. It directed that the account would remain frozen only to the extent of those disputed entries and not beyond.

The court clarified that SBI would still have to comply with any further requisition already made or subsequently made by the Puducherry police or another competent police officer, subject to Irfan's rights in law.

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the Single Judge's judgment.

For Appellants: Advocates Ipsita Ojal, Mariyamma A.K, Manas P Hameed and Laya Simon

For Respondents: Advocates Nazeeba OH, Senior Government Pleader and Amal George