SHO Where Petitioner Resides Necessary Party In Pleas Seeking De-Freezing Of Bank Accounts Alleged To Be Involved In Cyber Crimes: Kerala High Court
The High Court held that impleadment of the Station House Officer of the police station covering the petitioner’s address is necessary to verify the genuineness of the petitions and ensure that the writ jurisdiction is not misused in financial cyber-fraud matters.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has observed that a large number of writ petitions seeking unfreezing of bank accounts linked to alleged financial cyber fraud disclose unclear facts, inadequate pleadings, and, in some cases, even indications that the petitions may not have been filed by the persons named as petitioners.
The High Court, while hearing a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent bank to defreeze an account, issued directions aimed at safeguarding the integrity of proceedings in such writ petitions.
The Bench of Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim observed, “every day, this Court has been dealing with nearly 200 cases involving financial cyber fraud with respect to bank accounts”, deemed 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”.
Background
The petitioner’s bank account had been frozen following a requisition linked to a disputed transaction, prompting a plea to de-freeze the account and restrict any lien to the specific amount mentioned in the bank’s communication. The petitioner asserted that he had no involvement in any alleged cyber-fraud and that the account freeze had adversely affected his business operations.
Court’s Observation
The Kerala High Court expressed concern that in most writ petitions seeking de-freezing, petitioners fail to state even basic details regarding the alleged genuine transactions or the nature of their business, despite asserting that they innocently received disputed funds. It noted that banks frequently report large-volume transactions soon after account opening, inconsistent with the account holders’ declared profiles.
The Bench further observed that many of these petitions are filed with insufficient pleadings, sometimes through young advocates unable to address questions arising from the record. It also remarked that “some of the Writ Petitions are AI-generated and do not contain the basic material facts,” creating difficulties in ensuring judicial accountability and accuracy.
The Court also highlighted instances where account holders allegedly permit others to operate their accounts, including as mule accounts, or where innocent persons unknowingly receive proceeds of crime. In several cases, the Court noted, the requisitioning authorities outside Kerala do not respond to court notices, leaving the Court to rely solely on transaction patterns without the benefit of investigative input. This non-responsiveness, the Court remarked, worsens the situation and enables culprits to escape while victims suffer financial loss.
A particularly alarming incident, as highlighted by the Bench, involved the Court receiving a letter from a jail inmate stating that a writ petition had been filed in his name without his knowledge. The Court found this indicative of deliberate misuse of writ jurisdiction by individuals engaged in financial cyber-fraud, sometimes impersonating petitioners using forged documents.
The Court further took note that “under this subject highest number of cases are filed in this Court, which necessitated the constitution of a new subject roster for the listing of cases”. The Court, however, emphasised that even when procedural lapses in freezing are shown, relief under Article 226 is discretionary. Where circumstances give rise to a reasonable belief that the petitioner’s account may have been used to facilitate cyber-fraud, the Court may deny relief despite technical violations.
The Court concluded that greater procedural safeguards are necessary to verify the authenticity of petitions and ensure that the persons shown as petitioners are indeed the ones approaching the Court.
Conclusion
In view of these concerns, the Court directed that the Station House Officer of the police station covering the petitioner’s address, as shown in the writ petition, be impleaded in all such cases.
The petitioner was accordingly directed to implead the SHO of the jurisdictional police station. Further, the Registry was instructed not to number any writ petition seeking the defreezing of accounts unless the relevant SHO was made a party, until further orders.
The case was posted for further hearing on 15 December 2025.
Cause Title: Blue Star Aluminium & Door House v. The Federal Bank Ltd. & Another