Disposed¶39

C.Suresh v. The Branch Manager

Madras HC3 Jul 2026WP Crl.(MD)/3631/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

De-freeze of bank account frozen over alleged illegal/cyber transactions; whole-account freeze unjustified once fraudulent amount is quantified; lien to be marked only for quantified sum with account operation permitted; liberty to seek recall of lien before Jurisdictional Magistrate; writ of mandamus under Article 226; Indian Bank, Perugavazhndan Branch; CCB (Cyber Cell) Madurai; follows W.P.(MD).No.15684 of 2024 (15.07.2024); Madras High Court Madurai Bench; W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3631 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: first respondent Bank to mark a lien only for the quantified sum and permit the petitioner to operate his account forthwith; petitioner at liberty to seek recall of the lien before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate. ¶39

C.Suresh Vs The Branch Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the freezing of the petitioner's entire bank account (A/c No. 6868696642) is justified where the allegedly fraudulent amount is quantified, or whether the Bank should mark a lien only for the quantified sum and permit the account holder to operate the account.

¶33

Court's answer

When the alleged fraudulent amount is quantified, the freezing of the account holder's whole account is not justified; this reflects this Court's own observation in similar circumstances, endorsed and applied here.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The first respondent Bank shall mark a lien only for the quantified sum and permit the petitioner to operate the account forthwith.

¶40

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty to move the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate for recall of the lien marked over the quantified amount.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (L. Victoria Gowri, J.) — W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3631 of 2026, disposed of on 03.07.2026. Petitioner C.Suresh sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Perugavazhndan Branch, and the State (Inspector of Police, CCB Cyber Cell, Madurai) to de-freeze his account No. 6868696642, said to have been frozen owing to some illegal transactions, and to act on his representation dated 10.06.2026. Noting this Court's earlier view that where the alleged fraudulent amount is quantified, freezing the whole account is not justified, and applying W.P.(MD).No.15684 of 2024 dated 15.07.2024, the Court disposed of the petition directing the Bank to mark a lien only for the quantified sum and to permit the petitioner to operate the account forthwith, while leaving him liberty to move the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate for recall of the lien. No monetary quantum is stated in the order.

¶1

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3631 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.07.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3631 of 2026

C.Suresh

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Perugavazhndan Branch (Branch Code – 306), Thiruvarur District.

¶11

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, CCB (Cyber Cell) – Madurai, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st & 2^nd respondents to de-freeze the petitioner's Bank Account No. 6868696642, IFSC Code: IDIB000P036 maintained with 1^st respondent viz., Indian Bank, Perugavazhndan Branch, Thiruvarur District and permit the petitioner to operate his bank account, based on the petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2026 within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3631 of 2026

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Anandan

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.S.Karthick (R1)

¶18

Standing Counsel Mr.D.Rajaboopathy (R2) Government Advocate (Crl.)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the 1^st & 2^nd respondents to de-freeze the petitioner's Bank Account No. 6868696642, IFSC Code: IDIB000P036 maintained with 1^st respondent viz., Indian Bank, Perugavazhndan Branch, Thiruvarur District and permit the petitioner to operate his bank account, based on the petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2026 within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶21

The facts leading to the filing of the petition are as follows:

¶22

(a) The petitioner is holding an account bearing A/c No. 6868696642 at

¶23

the first respondent.

¶24

(b) The petitioner came to know that his account had been frozen.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not an accused in any criminal case; the act of the first respondent freezing the entire account is illegal and violates the fundamental rights of the

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3631 of 2026

¶29

petitioner; that the first respondent was obliged to obey the directions, the first 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.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the account of the petitioner was frozen due to some illegal transactions.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel on either sides and carefully perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶32

On perusal of the records, the fact is that the account has been frozen and the petitioner is unable to operate the account.

¶33

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:

¶34

“3. The respondent is permitted to retain the aforesaid sum by marking lien on the petitioner's account. Subject to such

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3631 of 2026

¶38

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.”

¶39