Madras High Court
K.Usharani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 7 December, 2023
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 W.P.(MD)NO.28919 OF 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.28919 of 2023 AND
W.M.P.(MD)No.24949 of 2023
K.Usharani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.the Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kalayarkovil police station,
Sivagangai District.
3. The Bank Manager,
State Bank of India,
ACB Kalayarkovil Branch,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned
letter issued by the third respondent dated 21.11.2023 quash
the same and consequently directing the third respondent
bank to defreeze the petitioner's above Savings Account
No.20377046265 and allow the petitioner to operate the same
as usual by considering the petitioner's representation dated
28.11.2023 within the time stipulated by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
2 W.P.(MD)NO.28919 OF 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sheenivasan
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.A.Albert James,
Government Advocate.
For R-3 : Mr.C.Deepak
***
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner is having a bank account with the
third respondent. The third respondent informed the
petitioner that on 21.11.2023 her account has been frozen as
per the instruction received from the second respondent. That
led to the filing of this writ petition.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, I called
upon the learned Government Advocate to explain as to why
the Inspector of Police, Kalayarkovil police station sent a
communication to the third respondent for freezing the
petitioner's bank account. The learned Government Advocate
made available the communication sent in May 2022 and
received by the third respondent on 23.05.2022 for freezing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the petitioner's bank account. It reads as follows:-
“
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Section 102 Cr.P.C. empowers the investigation
officer to freeze the petitioner's bank account. Madras High
Court in the decision reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Mad
2629 ( T.Subbulakshmi V. Commissioner of Police ) had
held as follows:-
“ 27.From the dictum laid down in the
judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel
for the petitioners it is clear that the bank
account is a property within the meaning of
Section 102 of Cr.P.C and sub-section (3) to
Section 102 requires the reporting of seizure of
the property to the concerned Magistrate
forthwith, which is mandatory in nature.
Moreover, the freezing of bank account is an act
of the investigation and therefore, the duty is cast
upon the Investigating Officer under Section
102(3) of Cr.P.C. to report the same to the
Magistrate, since the freezure of the bank
account prevents the person from operating the
bank account pursuant to an investigation by the
Police in a criminal case registered against him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
If there is any violation in following the
procedures under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., the
freezing of the bank account cannot be legally
sustained. Since in the case on hand the 2nd
respondent-Police has not reported the freezing
of the bank accounts of the petitioners herein to
the concerned Magistrate forthwith, which is
mandatory under Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C., the
proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Police in
freezing of the bank accounts of the petitioners
herein are not legally sustainable.”
5. I wanted to know to Ms.Samayamuthu, SSI,
Kalayarkovil police station who present in person to assist the
learned Government Advocate. I wanted to know from them, if
the intimation had been sent to the jurisdictional Judicial
Magistrate immediately. Even though some time was given,
they could not produce any such intimation. Therefore, I have
to necessarily hold that freezing of the petitioner's bank
account has to be removed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is true
that the petitioner's son has been implicated in NDPS case.
The quantity of contraband is small. There is nothing on
record to say that there is any connection between the
petitioner and her son's alleged illegal activities. Unless the
investigation officer satisfies himself that based on the
materials, the amount deposited in the petition mentioned
bank account is traceable to some crime, the investigation
officer could not have called upon the bank to freeze the
petitioner's bank account. In this case, the request made by
the second respondent is not based on any material.
Therefore, on these twin grounds, the impugned order is set
aside. The third respondent will permit the petitioner to
operate the petition-mentioned bank account. This writ
petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.12.2023
NCS : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.the Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kalayarkovil police station,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
07.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
