SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 61919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Vaidhehi – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN W.P(MD) Nos.500 to 502 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD) Nos.137 to 139 of 2025 W.P.(MD) No.500 of 2025 Vaidhehi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, S.S.Kottai Police Station, Sivagangai District.

3.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Eriyur Branch, Sivagangai District. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call of the records of the impugned letter of the 3rd respondent, dated 02.07.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to defreeze the Savings Bank Account in No.32229941566 and Current Account in No.33438945849 maintained by the petitioner with the third respondent Bank.

W.P.(MD) No.501 of 2025 Vaidhehi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, S.S.Kottai Police Station, Sivagangai District.

3.The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Eriyur Branch, Sivagangai District. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call of the records of the impugned letter of the 3rd respondent, dated 03.07.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to defreeze the Savings Bank Account in No.606101005360 and Current Account in No.606105012184 maintained by the petitioner with the third respondent Bank.

W.P.(MD) No.502 of 2025 Vaidhehi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, S.S.Kottai Police Station, Sivagangai District.

3.The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Melur Branch, Madurai District. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call of the records of the impugned letter of the 3rd respondent, dated 03.07.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to defreeze the Current Account in No.50200035000422 maintained by the petitioner with the third respondent Bank.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar for Mr.A.Balaji For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor For R3 : Mr.C.Deepak

COMMON ORDER

These petitions have been filed to quash the impugned letters of the third respondent and consequently direct the third respondent in all the matters to defreeze the accounts maintained by the petitioner with the third respondent Banks.

2. The facts leading to filing of the Writ Petitions are as follows:

The petitioner's husband is a Proprietor of one Mega Mines and has a license to quarry the rough stones in his Patta land at Mallakottai Village, Singampunari Taluk, Sivagangai District. On 20.05.2025 at 9.00 a.m, due to fall off a rock, a few workers in the quarry were killed. The Village Administrative Officer, Mallakkottai Village, had lodged a complaint to the second respondent, which was registered in Crime No. 55 of 2025 against the petitioner's husband and later, five others were included in the said FIR as accused for the offences under Sections 106(1) of BNS, 2023. During the course of investigation, the offences were altered to Sections 105, 125, 125(a), 303(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. During the course of investigation, the second respondent found that the the petitioner's husband had quarried in excess of the permit granted by the Collector and hence, he had violated the terms of license. He was thus accused of illegal quarrying of minerals. Thereafter, it appears, the second respondent sent a communication to the third respondent in all the cases, who are the Banks, to furnish details of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top