S.Selvi v. The State Of Tamilnadu Represented By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL S.Selvi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Virudhunangar District.

2.The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Karaikudi Branch, College Road, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to defreeze the petitioner's bank accounts in Account No. 134401000017671 maintained at second respondent Bank and based on petitioner's representation, dated 21.02.2025 and pass such other or further orders as this Court.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Veerakumar For R-1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For R-2 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar Standing Counsel

ORDER

The present petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to defreeze the petitioner's bank account in Account No. 134401000017671 maintained at second respondent Bank and based on petitioner's representation, dated 21.02.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, without any valid reasons based on the request of the first respondent, the second respondent frozen the account of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation, dated 21.02.2025 but the same has not been considered. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition.

2/5

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that based on the request given by the first respondent, they frozen the account of the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent would submit that they received the complaint from the de facto complainant and the same is under enquiry in CSR stage. Thereby, the first respondent requested the second respondent to freeze the account. But so far no FIR has been registered.

5. This Court had heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that without any valid reason and without any intimation based on the request of the first respondent, the second respondent has frozen the account. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent also admitted that no case has been registered against the petitioner. While so, without following the procedures, the first respondent has requested the second 3/5

respondent to freeze the account and the first respondent not even registered FIR and without registering FIR and without intimation to the concerned Court, frozen the account of the petitioner. Therefore, it is illegal and thereby, this Court directs the second respondent to defreeze the account of the petitioner forthwith.

7. With the above said observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 12.03.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To 1.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Virudhunangar District.

2.The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Karaikudi Branch, College Road, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

4/5

P.DHANABAL, J.

BTR 12.03.2025 5/5