Allowed

Shanthi v. The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Feb 2026CRL RC/2394/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to de-freeze frozen bank accounts. Finding only Rs.50,000 in the frozen accounts were insufficient for the prosecution, directed de-freezing with liberty to attach property under Section 107 BNSS if conditions are met.

What did the court decide?

Bank accounts of the petitioner and her children detailed in the revision petition directed to be de-frozen with liberty to attach property under Section 107 of BNSS if conditions are satisfied.

Shanthi Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.2394 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

CRL.R.C.No.2394 OF 2025

¶7

Shanthi D/o.Mani, W/o.Paulraj, New No.87, Old No.40, Parameshwari Nagar 2^nd Street, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State rep.By Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-I, EDF-II Wing, Beta – 5, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. (Crime No.213/2024) ..Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS

¶12

to call for the records relating to the order dated 23.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.12140 of 2025 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, For Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai), and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai – 08 and set aside the same.

¶13

1\4

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.R.C.No.2394 of 2025

¶16

For Petitioner :: Mr.K. Thenrajan For Respondent :: Mr.R. Vinothraja Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner challenges the dismissal of her

¶19

application to de-freeze her account and the accounts of her relatives including her children, which were frozen during the course of investigation in Crime No.213 of 2024.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was

¶21

working as an Assistant Accountant in the office of the de facto complainant; that she was entrusted with the administrative work such as maintaining of one time password; E-mails, Salary, GST filing and other payments; that taking advantage of the information, she had conspired with other accused and misappropriated company’s funds since 2022 to the tune of Rs.1,73,02,268/- and thus committed the offences under Sections 408, 420, 477(A), 109 and 120(B) IPC.

¶22

During the course of investigation, six accounts

¶23

belonging to the petitioner and that of her children were frozen by the

¶24

Investigating Officer. The petitioner sought for de-freezing of the accounts

¶25

2\4

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.R.C.No.2394 of 2025

¶28

before the learned Magistrate by filing Crl.M.P.No.12140 of 2025 which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶30

the respondent Police have no jurisdiction to freeze the bank accounts since the amount lying in the Bank is neither stolen property nor does it create a suspicion of commission of any offence and therefore, Section 102 Cr.P.C./Section 106 of BNSS ought not to have been invoked.

¶31

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), per contra, would submit that the petitioner had transferred the misappropriated funds into six accounts, which were frozen and therefore, Section 102 Cr.P.C/106 of BNSS was rightly invoked by the Investigating Officer and there is no infirmity in the action taken by the Investigating Officer. However, he would fairly concede that the total amount lying to the credit of the frozen accounts is only Rs.50,000/-.

¶32

Considering the fact that the amount lying to the credit of the accounts frozen is only Rs.50,000/-, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Court is of the view that the accounts cane be directed to be de-frozen as the freezing of accounts would be of no avail to the prosecution. Hence, the bank accounts of the petitioner

¶33

3\4

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.R.C.No.2394 of 2025

¶36

¶37

SUNDER MOHAN,J.

¶38

and her children, detailed in the revision petition, which have been frozen are directed to be de-frozen with liberty to the respondent to attach any property of the petitioner under Section 107 of BNSS provided the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied.

¶39

With the above observation, the revision is allowed.

03.02.2026

1.Metropolitan Magistrate, For Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai), and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai – 08.

¶44

2.Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-I, EDF-II Wing, Beta – 5, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. (Crime No.213/2024)

¶45

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶46

Crl.R.C.No.2394 of 2025

¶47

4\4

¶48

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

Shanthi v. The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanthi v. The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Perumal Vs The State Rep. by

Vijayakumar Vs Inspector of Police

V.Venkatesan Vs R.Vasudevan

T. Mohanraj Vs v. Rajan

Hrishikesh Vs Superintendent of Customs

Saravanan Vs State by