S.Vengadeswaran v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.05.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY S.Vengadeswaran

...Petitioner

Vs 1.The State of Uttar Pradesh, Represented by its Director General of Police, Cyber Crime, Tower 4, 5th Floor, Police Headquarters, Signature Building, Amar Shaheed Path, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh - 226 002.

2.M/s.The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Tondi Branch, Tiruvadanai Taluk,

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to forthwith defreeze the savings Bank Account bearing No.018401000022203 maintained by the petitioner with the 2nd Respondent bank and permit the petitioner to operate the account.

1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanan For R-2 : Mr.C.Deepak

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to defreeze the petitioner's bank account bearing Account No.018401000022203.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are as follows: (a) The petitioner is holding a current account bearing Account No. 018401000022203 at Indian Overseas 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 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 Cyber Police Coordination Cell, the second respondent was obliged to obey the directions, the second 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 second respondent 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 15.07.2024, wherein, it was held that:

3/6

"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 second respondent / Bank shall mark a lien only for the quantified sum 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.

07.05.2026 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Nsr Note: Issue Order Copy on 08.05.2026.

4/6

To:

1.Director General of Police, Cyber Crime, State of Uttar Pradesh, Tower 4, 5th Floor, Police Headquarters, Signature Building, Amar Shaheed Path, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh - 226 002.

2.M/s.The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Tondi Branch, Tiruvadanai Taluk, 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

S.SRIMATHY , J.

Nsr 07.05.2026 6/6