T.R.Shakila v. The Manager
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD).No.15461 of 2025 T.R.Shakila ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Manager, Indian Bank, Pb No.5555, 254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014.
2.The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai - 625 023.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to defreeze the petitioner's savings Bank Account No.984408690, Indian Bank, High Court Branch Madurai - 625 023, based on the petitioner's representations dated 01.07.2025 and 11.07.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Pozhilan for M/s.C.Arulvadivel Associates For Respondents : Mr.C.Karthik Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. As a matter of fact, the issue is now covered by a decision of this Court rendered in W.P.No.25631 of 2024 in the case of Mohammed Saifullah Vs. Reserve bank of India and others, dated 10.09.2024, wherein, this Court has referred to Circular Memorandum issued by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai dated 24.06.2021 bearing C.No.131/COP,GCP/Camp/2021, the content of which is extracted below:
3. This Court, in the above case, has observed as under: "6. Unfortunately, in most of the cases the guidelines issued in this Circular not observed. Later when an identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in WP No. 13509 of 2024 considering the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.T.Enrica Lexie and another -vsDoramma and others reported in MANU/SC/0409/2012, Teesta Atul Setalvad and others -vs- The State of Gujarat and others, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 372 and Shento Varghese - vs- Julfikar Husen and others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 895, directed the petitioner/account holder to execute a bond undertaking to deposit the amount in case the money found in his account is a tainted money and liable to be forfeited.
7. As far as the present case in hand, though the intimation from the Cyber Crime Bureau, Telangana, indicates that suspected money in the account of the petitioner is only a tune of Rs. 2,48,835/-, due to the blanket order to freeze the account, the fifth respondent Bank has freezed the account in its entirety. Therefore, the petitioner herein is unable to operate his account and deal with the money lying in his account.
8. Under the guise of investigation, order freezing the entire account without quantifying the amount and period cannot be passed. Such order will be construed as violation of the fundamental rights of trade and business as well as violation of livelihood. Therefore, it is appropriate to direct the
fifth respondent to de-freeze the account and kept a lien over a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The petitioner herein is permitted to operate his account, subject to the condition that he shall ensure, the account shall always have a minimum of Rs. 2,50,000/-.
9. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
4. This view has also been followed recently by this Court in W.P. (MD).No.17966 of 2025 in the case of Nowsath Vs. The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Chennai and others, dated 03.07.2025, wherein, the Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of the above order.
5. In the present case, the petitioner claims to be a Typist, who is employed by an Advocate practising before this Court and that all of a sudden, the petitioner's bank account was frozen. It is submitted that the petitioner has only a sum of Rs.25,000/- in the aforesaid account and for no fault of the petitioner, her account has been frozen.
6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondents have acted pursuant to a communication
received through e-mail from their headquarters based on a Cyber Police Complaint No.31912240174146 filed at the behest of one Majety Sambasiva Rao on 06.12.2024. It is submitted that the aforesaid communication itself calls upon the customer to contact the Law Enforcement Authority (LEA).
7. It is noticed that the communication was sent to the second respondent by the first respondent on 22.07.2025. However, the petitioner's bank account appears to have been frozen on 27.06.2025. Since the petitioner is merely an employee with an Advocate of this High Court and is having no other past involvement in any cyber crime, the respondents are directed to de-freeze the petitioner's bank account and allow the petitioner to operate the account in the light of the decisions cited supra.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 24.07.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm
To 1.The Manager, Indian Bank, Pb No.5555, 254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.
2.The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai - 625 023.
C.SARAVANAN,J.
Lm 24.07.2025