D.Poosavathi v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY WP.Crl.(MD).No. 1020 of 2026 D. Poosavathi

...Petitioner

Vs

1. The Inspector of Police, Adarsh Nagar Police Station, Jaipur City (East), State of Rajasthan.

2.The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Kabisthalam Branch, 3/16, Main Road, Kabisthalam, Thanjavur District.

Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):

Mr.V.Vijayendiran For Respondents : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate (Crl.side), for R-1 Mr.C. Karthick, for R-2 Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to defreeze the frozen account of the petitioner bearing Account No.837010110011884, within the time frame as fixed by this Court.

1/6

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to defreeze the frozen account of the petitioner bearing Account No.837010110011884, within the time frame as fixed by this Court.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are as follows: (a) The petitioner is holding a Savings Bank Account bearing Account No. 837010110011884 at 2nd respondent's bank .

(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 2nd respondent bank 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 2nd respondent was obliged to obey the directions, the 2nd 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. 2/6

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 1st respondent.

5. On perusal of the records, it is clear that there is nothing on record to show that the 1st respondent police 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 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 3/6

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 2nd respondent / Bank shall keep only a lien amount of Rs.25,000/- 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 disposed of. No costs.

24.02.2026 KSA 4/6

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Adarsh Nagar Police Station, Jaipur City (East), State of Rajasthan.

2.The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Kabisthalam Branch, 3/16, Main Road, Kabisthalam, Thanjavur District.

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

5/6

S.SRIMATHY, J KSA WP.Crl.(MD).No. 1020 of 2026 24.02.2026 6/6