Viji v. The Branch Manager

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 11.02.2026

CORAM

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

1. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank Ltd., No.650, VMR Complex, Bye Pass Road, Vasantha Nagar, TVS Nagar Post, Madurai.

2. State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Branch, Karur Police Station, Karur.

... Respondents PRAYER :- This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of petitioner dated 27.01.2026 made to the respondents to defreeze the Bank Account and to release the lien made in excess of Rs.20,000/- which is the disputed amount in the bank account No. 110080350598 maintained by petitioner with the 1st respondent, which was frozen at the instance of the 2nd respondent's request. 1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Suthakaran For Respondents : Mr.V.Balasubramanian (For R1) Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R2)

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to defreeze the petitioner's bank account bearing Account No.110080350598.

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. 110080350598, Canara Bank, at Bypass Road, Vasantha Nagar, TVS Nagar Post, Madurai, Tamil Nadu.

(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 second respondent freezing the entire account is illegal and violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner; that though pursuant to the alleged 2/6

communication sent by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent was obliged to obey the directions, the 1st 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 2nd respondent would submit that the account of the petitioner was frozen on the basis of the case was registered in CSR No.439 of 2025.

5. On perusal of the records, it is clear that there is nothing on record to show that the 2nd respondent had requested the 1st 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 1st respondent / Bank shall keep only a lien amount of Rs.20,000/- 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.

11.02.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes msrm 4/6

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Branch, Karur Police Station, Karur.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

3. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank Ltd., No.650, VMR Complex, Bye Pass Road, Vasantha Nagar, TVS Nagar Post, Madurai.

5/6

S.SRIMATHY,J msrm WP CRL.(MD) No.752 of 2026 11.02.2026 6/6