Subburam v. The Manager

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 20/01/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Subburam ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Manager, City Union Bank, No.794, Main Road, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District..

2. The Inspector of Police,, Aruldalpet Police Station, Gundur, State of Andhra Pradesh.

... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned Communication issued by the 1st respondent through e-mail dated 01.12.2025 and quash the same as it is illegal and consequently direct the respondent to defreeze the petitioner's Account No.CA-510909010272729.

For Petitioner : Mr. S Sades Kumar, 1/6

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.A.S. Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to defreeze the petitioner's bank account bearing Account No. CA-510909010272729. .

2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are as follows: (a) The petitioner is holding a current account bearing A/c No.CA-510909010272729 at City Union Bank, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

(b) The petitioner came to know that his account had been frozen.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not an accused in any criminal case; the act of the fourth respondent freezing the entire account is illegal and violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner; that though pursuant to the alleged communication sent by the Cyber Police Coordination Cell, the fourth 2/6

respondent was obliged to obey the directions, the fourth respondent ought to have informed the petitioner about the action taken thereon; and that having failed to do so, it has breached the contract with the petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the account of the petitioner was frozen on the basis of the communication from the Cyber Police Coordination Cell.

5. On perusal of the records, it is clear that there is nothing on record to show that the Cyber Police Coordination Cell had requested the second respondent to freeze the entire account. The fact is that account has been frozen and the petitioner is unable to operate the account.

6. It is seen that in similar circumstances, this Court had observed that when the alleged fraudulent amount is quantified, the freezing of the whole account would not be justified. Similar view was taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.15684 of 2024 dated 3/6

15.07.2024, wherein, it was held that:

"3. The respondent is permitted to retain the aforesaid sum by marking lien on the petitioner's account. Subject to such marking of lien, the petitioner is permitted to operate their bank account. The freezing effected on the petitioner's bank account is lifted to the aforesaid extent. T\his writ petition stands allowed . No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of on the following directions:

(a). The first respondent / Bank shall keep only a lien amount of Rs.90,000/- and permit the petitioner to operate the account forthwith. (b). The petitioner is at liberty to move to the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate for recall of the lien marked over the quantified amount, if he is so advised.

8. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is 4/6

disposed of. No costs.

20.01.2026 TRP Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TO

1. The Manager, City Union Bank, No.794, Main Road, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District..

2. The Inspector of Police,, Aruldalpet Police Station, Gundur, State of Andhra Pradesh..

5/6

S.SRIMATHY,J TRP

ORDER

Date : 20/01/2026 6/6