1. This Writ Petition is filed by a Private Limited Company seeking direction to quash the freezing of the Phonepe wallet linked with the Account of the Petitioner maintained with the Respondent No.1/Bank.

2. The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed a Not-Press Memo stating that he is constrained to withdraw the Writ Petition without prejudice to the Petitioner’s rights to pursue appropriate remedies available under law, if so required in future.

3. Counsel for the Petitioner absent. I heard the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, Sri. P. Gopal.

4. Even though this Court had ordered the Petitioner to implead the Petitioner’s local SHO, no such Application for impleading is filed.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 invited my attention to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.1/Bank, which states that the Current Account of the Petitioner is a money mule account; that in the enquiry, the building of the Company is closed and no business activities were carried out for several days; that there were 4,08,521 credit transactions and 378 debit transactions in the current account of the Petitioner during the period from 29.08.2025 to 01.09.2025; that the total value of credit amount is Rs.17,07,70,224/- and the total value of the debit amount is Rs.16,98,43,644/- during the period from 29.08.2025 to 01.09.2025; and that the Current Account of the Petitioner was frozen on 01.09.2025. It is further stated that there are 73 hold in the Current Account of the Petitioner as on 16.11.2025 on the basis of the Requisitions received from various Police Authorities. The total annual turnover furnished by the Petitioner in the Account Opening Application was only Rs.2 Crores.

6. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to accept the Not-Press Memo dated 24.11.2025 filed by the Counsel for the Petitioner and the same is rejected.

7. The learned Government Pleader is directed to identify the local SHO of the Police Station with reference to the address of the Petitioner, for impleadment in this Writ Petition and further enquiry.

8. It is seen from the Writ Petition and the Affidavit that the signatures of the person representing the Petitioner and the Seal of the Petitioner are copied and pasted to it. The Vakalath filed in original contains the signature and seal. It appears that the Writ Petition and the Affidavit are not signed and sealed before scanning and uploading the same for filing.

9. The relevant Rule 6 of the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, formulated by this Court invoking the power under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, is extracted hereunder.

                  “6. Digital Signature:-

                  (1) A document electronically filed using the Electronic Filing System shall bear the digital signature of the Advocate or the Party-in-Person. The digital signature shall be affixed on such places as are mandated under the relevant Acts and Rules.

                  (2) An Advocate or a Party-in-Person who does not possess the digital signature as issued by the competent authority, can authenticate electronically filed pleadings and documents by Electronic Signature [e-signature] based on Adhaar authentication using his Adhaar number and the OTP sent to the registered number of the Advocate or Party-in-Person. Such an authentication shall be considered as a valid identification for all intents and purposes.

                  (3) An Advocate or a Party-in-Person who does not possess a Digital Signature and Electronic Signature [e-signature] can authenticate electronically filed documents by electronic verification using his Electronic Mail Address (e-mail) or mobile phone number based OTP authentication.

                  (4) If the Advocate or the Party-in-Person is unable to authenticate as mentioned in sub-rules (1) to (3) then a print out of the pleadings or documents shall be physically signed in accordance with the relevant Rules and thereafter it shall be scanned and uploaded.

                  (5) A list of the recognised Digital Signature providers and the procedure involved in appending single or multiple signatures will be available in the web portal of the Court concerned.”

10. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 6 mandates that the Pleadings and Documents shall be physically signed in accordance with the relevant Rules and thereafter it shall be scanned and uploaded, if the digital signature could not be affixed in accordance with Sub-Rule (1) or it could not be authenticated in accordance with Sub-Rules (2) & (3).

11. As per Rule 2(h) of the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, "digital signature" means digital signature as defined in Section 2(1)(p) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000). As per Section 2(1)(p) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000), "digital signature" means authentication of any electronic record by a subscriber by means of an electronic method or procedure in accordance with the provisions of Section 3; Section 3 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000) is extracted hereunder.

                  “3. Authentication of electronic records:-

                  (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any subscriber may authenticate an electronic record by affixing his digital signature.

                  (2) The authentication of the electronic record shall be effected by the use of asymmetric crypto system and hash function which envelop and transform the initial electronic record into another electronic record.

                  Explanation.-- For the purposes of this sub-section, "hash function" means an algorithm mapping or translation of one sequence of bits into another, generally smaller, set known as "hash result" such that an electronic record yields the same hash result every time the algorithm is executed with the same electronic record as its input making it computationally infeasible—

                  (a) to derive or reconstruct the original electronic record from the hash result produced by the algorithm;

                  (b) that two electronic records can produce the same hash result using the algorithm.

                  (3) Any person by the use of a public key of the subscriber can verify the electronic record.

                  (4) The private key and the public key are unique to the subscriber and constitute a functioning key pair.”

12. In view of the aforesaid Rules, the Advocates and the Parties are not entitled to scan and upload the Pleadings with signatures copied and pasted on it. All the Pleadings scanned and uploaded for filing shall be physically signed by the parties and their Advocates before scanning and uploading the same, in case the digital signature could not be affixed in accordance with Sub-Rule (1) or it could not be authenticated in accordance with Sub-Rules (2) & (3) of Rule 6 of the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021. The Advocate or the Party who is filing the Pleadings shall keep the originals of the Pleadings signed by the parties and their Advocates for verification in case of any doubt entertained by the Registry or by this Court.

13. The Registry of this Court is directed to ensure that the Pleadings scanned and uploaded for filing in this Court are scanned from the Pleadings physically signed by the parties and their Advocates, if Sub-Rules (1) to (3) of Rule 6 of the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, are not applicable. The Registry is directed not to accept those Pleadings in which the signatures are copied and pasted. In case of any doubt, the Registry shall accept those Pleadings, if the Advocate or Party satisfies the Registry that the Pleadings are physically signed by the parties and their Advocates before scanning and uploading, either on production of the original Pleadings or otherwise.

14. Post on 10.03.2026.