Fazel Beevi v. The Commissioner Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 28/11/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Fazel Beevi ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Tirunelveli City.
2.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, No.186, V.O.C. Street, Tirunelveli Town.
3.The Inspector of Police,, Cyber Crime Police Station, No.21, CID Annexe Building, Race Course Road, Bangalore 560 001.
(R3 is Impleaded vide court order dated 4.9.25 in W.M.P(MD) No.22022 of 2024) ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to de-freeze the petitioner's bank account no. 42318288859 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.10.2024.
1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja, Advocate For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.M.Ponniah
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to de-freeze the petitioner's bank Account No. 42318288859 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.10.2024.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that she is not an accused in any case; that in the year 2024, she received a communication from the second respondent stating that the second respondent had, in turn, received a communication from the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Race Course Road, Bangalore, for freezing of the petitioner's bank account; that no enquiry was conducted by the second respondent before freezing the account; and that therefore, the bank account has to be de-frozen.
2/6
3. Since the account was frozen at the instance of the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Race Course Road, Bangalore, this Court suo motu impleaded the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Race Course Road, Bangalore, as third respondent and issued notice. It is seen that though the third respondent has been served, none has entered appearance on their behalf.
4.The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent had received a communication from the third respondent stating that a fraudster had illegally withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,13,000/- from the de facto complainant's account; that the said amount was transferred to various accounts, including that of the petitioner and that a sum of Rs.36,000/- has been transferred to the petitioner's account, which is found to be suspicious.
5.Admittedly, the petitioner is not an accused. The petitioner's account is sought to be frozen only because a sum of Rs.36,000/- has been credited to her account, which is found to be suspicious. This Court, in similar circumstances, in the case of Mohammed Saifullah Vs 3/6
Reserve Bank of India and others in W.P.No.25631 of 2024, permitted the person whose account had been frozen to operate the account, after marking lien over the amount found to be suspicious. 6.Considering the above said facts and the view taken earlier, this Court directs the second respondent to de-freeze the petitioner's account and permit the petitioner to operate the account and mark a lien over the sum of Rs.36,000/-.
7.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
28.11.2025 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No cp/ars 4/6
TO 1.The Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Tirunelveli City.
2.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, No.186, V.O.C. Street, Tirunelveli Town.
3.The Inspector of Police,, Cyber Crime Police Station, No.21, CID Annexe Building, Race Course Road, Bangalore 560 001.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
SUNDER MOHAN,J CP/ars
ORDER
IN WP(MD) No.24807 of 2024 Date : 28/11/2025 6/6