Dismissed¶36

John Peter v. the State Rep by

Madras HC6 Feb 2025CRL OP/23211/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defreeze/derecognition of frozen bank accounts under S.528 BNSS 2023; Madras High Court Crl.O.P.; Canara Bank Perambalur; FIR Cr.No.47/2022 AWPS-Perambalur closed as “Mistake of Fact”; joint savings and NRE accounts of husband and wife; freeze at instance of wife as joint account holder; inter-spouse dispute; conditional directions for joint operation; sole-name account to be operated without impediment; petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Both accounts are admittedly joint accounts held by the petitioner and his wife, and there is a misunderstanding between them; therefore the directions sought for in the petitions cannot be granted. ¶32

John Peter Vs the State Rep by — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent bank should be directed to defreeze the petitioner's Savings Bank Account No.1214101073387 and Account No.1214103058878, frozen on the basis of FIR in Cr.No.47/2022 registered by the first respondent police. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Both accounts are admittedly joint accounts held by the petitioner and his wife, and there is a misunderstanding between them; therefore the directions sought for in the petitions cannot be granted.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner and his wife mutually agree to operate the accounts jointly, the second respondent bank is directed to permit them to operate the accounts.

¶32

Key takeaways

If any account is held solely in the petitioner's name, there shall be no impediment arising from the objections raised by the petitioner's wife; in such a case the second respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to operate the NRE Account if it is held solely by him.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.), by common order dated 06.02.2025 in Crl.O.P.Nos.23211 and 23218 of 2024 filed under S.528 BNSS 2023, dismissed petitions by John Peter seeking directions to the Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Perambalur, to defreeze his Savings Bank Account No.1214101073387 and NRE Account No.1214103058878, frozen pursuant to FIR in Crime No.47/2022 of AWPS-Perambalur Police Station. Although the FIR stood closed as “Mistake of Fact”, the bank maintained the freeze, stating it acted at the request of the petitioner's wife, a joint account holder. Finding a misunderstanding between the spouses and both accounts to be admittedly joint accounts, the court held the defreeze directions could not be granted, but directed that (i) if husband and wife mutually agree to operate the accounts jointly, the bank must permit joint operation, and (ii) any account held solely in the petitioner's name faces no impediment from the wife's objections, the bank being directed to permit operation of the NRE Account if solely held by him.

¶1

Crl.O.P.Nos.23211 and 23218 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.Nos.23211 and 23218 of 2024

¶7

John Peter

¶8

... Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps

¶9

¶10

The State Rep By The Inspector of Police, AWPS - Perambalur Police Station, Perambalur-621 212.

¶11

The Senior Manager, Canara Bank, M.V.K.Complex, Thuraiyur Road, Perambalur-621 212. ... Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.23211 of 2024: Criminal Original Petition is filed under 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to direct the second respondent bank to defreeze the petitioner's Savings Bank Account No.1214101073387 freezed on the basis of the FIR in Cr.No.47/2022 registered by the first respondent police.

¶12

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.23218 of 2024: Criminal Original Petition is filed under 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to direct the second respondent bank to defreeze the petitioner's Savings Bank Account NRE (Non-Resident External) Account No.1214103058878 freezed on the basis of the FIR in Cr.No.47/2022 registered by the first respondent police.

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.O.P.Nos.23211 and 23218 of 2024

¶16

In both Crl.O.Ps

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Samivel For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R2 : Mr.R.Sreedhar

¶18

COMMON ORDER

¶19

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed directing the

¶20

second respondent bank to defreeze the petitioner's Savings Bank Account No.1214101073387 and Account No.1214103058878 freezed on the basis of

¶21

the FIR in Cr.No.47/2022 registered by the first respondent police.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials

¶23

placed on record.

¶24

Pursuant to the registration of FIR in Crime No.47 of 2022, both

¶25

the accounts have been frozen by the second respondent. Now, FIR in Crime No.47 of 2022 is closed as “Mistake of Fact”. Even then the second respondent did not permit the petitioner to operate the same.

¶26

4. On instructions, the learned counsel for the second respondent

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

Crl.O.P.Nos.23211 and 23218 of 2024

¶30

would submit that both the accounts of the petitioner have been frozen only on

¶31

the request made by the petitioner's wife, who is a joint account holder and not permitted the petitioner to operate the accounts.

¶32

5. It is seen that there is a misunderstanding between the petitioner and his wife. Admittedly, both accounts in question are joint accounts held by the petitioner and his wife. Therefore, the directions sought for in these petitions cannot be granted. However, if the petitioner and his wife mutually agree to operate the accounts jointly, the second respondent is directed to permit them to operate the accounts. It is made clear that if any one of the accounts held solely in the name of the petitioner, there shall be no impediment arising from the objections raised by the petitioner's wife. In such a case, the second respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to operate the NRE Account, if it is held solely by the petitioner.

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.O.P.Nos.23211 and 23218 of 2024

¶36

6. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.

¶37

06.02.2025

¶38

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order mns