WP CRL.(MD). No.2515 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 20/01/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY WP CRL.(MD). No.2515 of 2025 N.Selvamurugan, ... Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Uttarpradesh Rep By, the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Sulthanpur.. 2. State Bank of India, Pot No.784, W Main Road, Anna Nagar, Sathamangalam, Madurai.. ... 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 primary savings bank account No.39916851104 of Anna Nagar Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, forthwith and allow me to operate the account regularly without any hindrance. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP CRL.(MD). No.2515 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.S Harish, For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, 2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are as follows: (a) The petitioner is holding a current account bearing A/c No. 39916851104 at State Bank of India, Pot No.784, W Main Road, Anna Nagar, Sathamangalam, Madurai (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 communication sent by the Cyber Police Coordination Cell, the second 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP CRL.(MD). No.2515 of 2025 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP CRL.(MD). No.2515 of 2025 “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 keep only a lien amount of Rs.31,200/- 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. 20.01.2026 tta 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP CRL.(MD). No.2515 of 2025 TO 1.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Sulthanpur.. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP CRL.(MD). No.2515 of 2025 S.SRIMATHY,J tta ORDER IN WP CRL.(MD) No.2515 of 2025 Date : 20/01/2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis