BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P.CRl.(MD)No.174 of 2026 Syed Hameed Jahufar ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Thilak Nagar Police Station, Thane City, Maharastra. 2.HDFC Bank Limited, Represented by its Principal Nodal Officer, 5th Floor, Tower B, Peninsula Business Park, Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400 013.

3.Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Old No.21, Muslim Bazar Street, Keelakarai-623 517, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to defreeze the petitioner's Saving Bank Account No.50100375235247 with lien limited to Rs.40,000/- on the branch of them within stipulated time prescribed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.A.Syed Shaik Alaudeen For R-1 : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to defreeze the petitioner's Saving Bank Account No.50100375235247.

2. Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) takes notice for the first respondent. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the second and third respondents, notice to the second and third respondents is dispensed with.

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

(a) The petitioner is holding a current account bearing A/c No.

50100375235247 at HDFC Bank Limited, Keelakari Branch, Ramanathapuram District.

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

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not an accused in any criminal case; the act of the third respondent freezing the entire account is illegal and violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner; that though pursuant to the alleged communication sent by the Cyber Police Coordination Cell, the third respondent was obliged to obey the directions, the third 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.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the account of the petitioner was frozen on the basis of the communication from the Cyber Police Coordination Cell.

6. On perusal of the records, it is clear that there is nothing on record to show that the Cyber Police Coordination Cell had requested the third respondent to freeze the entire account. The fact is that account has been frozen and the petitioner is unable to operate the account.

7. 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:

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

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of on the following directions: (a). The third respondent / Bank shall mark a lien only for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and permit the petitioner to operate the account forthwith.

(b). The petitioner is at liberty to move to the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate for recall of the lien marked over the quantified amount, if he is so advised.

9. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

12.01.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes TSG To: