Freezing of bank accounts under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. requires evidence of criminality, and remedies exist under Section 107 of BNSS for legitimate attachment.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 23/10/2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN WP CRL.(MD). No.1666 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.399, 400 and 401 of 2025 Karthikeyan Manikandan ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, 40, Bazullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017..

2. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, (Cr. No. 10 of 2025)

Trichy City.. ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records related to the impugned communication of the first respondent bank dated 19/09/2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to de-freeze the petitioner's Savings Account Number bearing: 602601553511 (IFSC Code: ICICI0006020) maintained in the first respondent -ICICI Bank and allow free operation of the said Bank account by the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilipkumar, For R1 : Mr.S.Krishna For R2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petition is for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication of the first respondent bank dated 19/09/2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to de-freeze the petitioner's Savings Bank bearing Account No. 602601553511 (IFSC Code: ICICI0006020) maintained by the first respondent -ICICI Bank.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the account mentioned above was frozen by the first respondent, at the instance of the second respondent; that he had been operating the said account from 2019; that all of a sudden, the bank informed that the transactions have been blocked; that he came to know that the said intimation was sent by the second respondent during the investigation in Crime No.10 of 2025, which was registered for the offences under Sections, 406, 420 of IPC and Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and that the respondents have no jurisdiction to freeze the account under Section 102 Cr.P.C (Corresponding to 106 of BNS).

3. The learned counsel would submit that the amount lying in the bank account cannot be said to be stolen property or creating suspicion of Commission of any offence; that even if the respondents are of the view that the amount lying in the bank has to be safeguard to protect the interest of the defacto complainant, the respondents can only seek attachment the property under Section 107 of BNS and that therefore, the impugned communication is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.Crl.(MD).No.500 to 502 of 2025 dated 17.09.2025 in support of his submission.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the petitioner has cheated his own mother and misappropriated a sum of Rs.30 Crores by selling a property which jointly belongs to his mother and other siblings and misappropriated the entire sale consideration and that the interest of the defacto complainant and other siblings of the petitioner has to be safeguarded and hence, the impugned communication was sent to the first respondent and that the impugned communication is therefore not liable to be quashed and sought for dismissal of this petition.

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the account was frozen only at the instance of the second respondent and they are only formal parties.

6. To a specific question as to what is the amount lying in the account that is now frozen, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is lying in the account.

7. It is the case