Tri Eserv v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By Its

1/6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH and WMP No. 37190 of 2024 TRI ESERV Rep. By Its Proprietor, Anandu S.Nair, No.22/97, Veda Ranga Nivas, Dr.Ambedkar Road, 4th Avenue Ashok Nagar, Chennai 24.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By Its Inspector Of Police, Kodambakkam Police Station, Kodambakkam, Chennai.

2.Reserve Bank Of India 16th Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai 400001.

3.ICICI Bank Rep. By Its Branch Manager, Kodambakkam Branch, Kodambakkam, Chennai.

Respondent(s)

2/6 PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to De Freeze the Account and allow the petitioner herein to operate the Account. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S.Muthu Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1 Mr.C.Mohan Ms.A.Rexy Josephine Mary for M/s.King and Partridge for R2 Mr.Akash Srinanda for R3

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the 3 rd respondent to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner and allow the petitioner to operate the account.

2.Heard Mr.S.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent, Mr.C.Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent and Mr.Akash Srinanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent.

3/6 3.The writ petition has been filed on the premise that the 3 rd respondent Bank has freezed the bank account based on the directions given by the 1 st respondent.

4.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the 1 st respondent submitted that the 1 st respondent did not issue any directions to the rd respondent to freeze the bank account of the petitioner. However, in order to understand the source based on which such freezing of bank account was done by the 3 rd respondent, a communication was made to the 3 rd respondent Bank.

The 3 rd respondent Bank in their letter dated 14.02.2025, informed the 1 st respondent that nearly five complaints were received from various States based on which such freezing of bank account was done. 5.On receipt of the communication from the 3 rd respondent Bank, the 1 st respondent took efforts to see the source from which such complaints emanated. The particulars collected by the 1 st respondent shows that the complaints have emanated from Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Chhattisgarh and it seems that

4/6 various complaints have been given against the petitioner which resulted in such freezing of the Bank account in the 3 rd respondent Bank.

6.In the light of the above details that were furnished before this Court, the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court, since the 1 st respondent was not responsible for the freezing of the Bank account before the 3 rd respondent. There is a wider ramification in this case which has not been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 7.Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 03-06-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ssr

5/6 To

1. The Inspector Of Police Kodambakkam Police Station, Kodambakkam, Chennai.

2.Reserve Bank Of India 16th Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai 400001.

3.The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Kodambakkam Branch, Kodambakkam, Chennai.

6/6 N.ANAND VENKATESH J.

ssr 03-06-2025