Muthulakshmi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 05/03/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI Muthulakshmi ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Inspector of Police, Jnanabharathi Police Station, Karnataka Banglore City Jhanabarathi, State of Karnataka.

2. The Branch Manager,, Indian Overseas Bank, Kottampatty Road, Natham, Dindigul District.

... Respondents PRAYER :- To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.02.2026 and to defreeze the frozen account of the petitioner bearing Account No. 228801000013761 within the time frame as may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr. S.Arjun, Advocate.

1/6

For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) : Mr.C.Deepak for R2

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.02.2026 and to defreeze the frozen account of the petitioner bearing Account No.228801000013761 within the time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an account holder, holding a Savings Bank Account in Account No.228801000013761, with the second respondent bank. It is seen that on 09.01.2026, the second respondent had received an e-mail regarding the cyber police complaint, in acknowledgment number 3160520064982 and stated that on 24.04.2025 an amount of Rs.376/- was transferred to the petitioner's bank account. Regarding the said transaction, the first respondent had communicated to the second respondent to freeze the petitioner's account. Based on the first 2/6

respondent's email communication, the second respondent had frozen the petitioner's bank account. The said transaction particulars is that IMPS/ 511416572199/NMLORR/INDB/xxxx262782/. Despite receiving communication from the first respondent that only an amount of Rs.376/- has been received in the petitioner's account from an unknown transferrer, the second respondent bank had completely freezed the petitioner's account and hence sought the indulgence of this Court by directing the second respondent to defreeze the account.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent categorically contended that only on the direction received from the first respondent police, the second respondent bank had frozen the petitioner's account and they have no further instruction from the first respondent police to defreeze the same, to mark a lien on the said amount and thereafter permit the petitioner to operate the said account.

4. Heard either sides and carefully perused the materials available in record.

3/6

5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that a communication has been received by the second respondent bank from the Regional office of the second respondent bank, directing them to freeze the entire amount of the petitioner. However, no records has been produced before this Court in this regard. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner may be permitted to operate his account forthwith, except by marking lien over the amount of Rs.376/- which has been received in his account from unknown sources. It is also made clear that if at all the petitioner's account is receiving anymore amount from unknown sources, the second respondent bank is at liberty to the freeze the same as well. The petitioner is at liberty to move before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate for recalling of the lien marked over the quantified amount, if he is so advised.

6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

05.03.2026 NCC : yes / no Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no pnn 4/6

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Jnanabharathi Police Station, Karnataka Banglore City Jhanabarathi, State of Karnataka..

2. The Branch Manager,, Indian Overseas Bank, Kottampatty Road, Natham, Dindigul District.

5/6

L. VICTORIA GOWRI,J pnn

ORDER

IN WP CRL.(MD) No.1331 of 2026 Date : 05/03/2026 6/6