An account holder sought mandamus to unfreeze his savings account frozen at police request during a cybercrime investigation. The court found the petition delayed and lacking investigation details, dismissed it, but suggested the bank seek the investigation stage and consider partial freezing only.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.29893 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD).No.29893 of 2025
M.Abdul Salam ... Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to de-freeze the petitioner personal savins account in Account No.1841 00050 30 1819 maintained on the 2nd respondent bank by considering petitioners representation dated 28.07.2025 forthwith.
1/6
W.P.(MD)No.29893 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Karthick For R2 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to de-freeze the petitioner personal savings account in Account No.1841 00050 30 1819 maintained on the 2nd respondent bank by considering petitioner's representation dated 28.07.2025 forthwith.
2nd respondent.
The petitioner would submit that he along with his wife had opened a joint personal savings account in the 2nd respondent bank. The petitioner originally worked as a contract labour in Saudi Arabia and was in habit of sending money periodically to his wife in India. After working abroad for
2/6
W.P.(MD)No.29893 of 2025
a considerable period of time and on account of his advancing age he had returned to India and was residing at Pudukottai.
3/6
W.P.(MD)No.29893 of 2025
from the 1st respondent and complaint had been lodged under Section 66(C) of the IT Act and 419 and 420 of IPC.
4/6
W.P.(MD)No.29893 of 2025
communicated to him by the 2nd respondent. However, no steps had been taken by the petitioner to date. It is also not known if the investigation has been completed.
and that too without providing further details about the investigation is not maintainable and therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, in the light of the representation given, the 2nd respondent bank could address the 1st respondent as to the stage of the investigation and if the investigation does not make out the case against the complaint, they could consider de-freezing the account. In the meantime they could also consider freezing the account only to the extent mentioned in the complaint.
No costs.
25.10.2025
NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm
5/6
W.P.(MD)No.29893 of 2025
P.T.ASHA, J.
rgm
To
W.P.(MD).No.29893 of 2025
25.10.2025
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Should the Court direct de-freezing of a personal savings account frozen on police notice in connection with an online fraud investigation?
Is a mandamus petition maintainable after long delay without details of the investigation's progress?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
M.Abdul Salam
State of Karnataka Rep by its, Inspector of Police, CEN Police Station North East Division, Bengaluru City
The Branch Manager, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank
P.T.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
