Madras High Court
Thomas Ebenezer vs The Inspector Of Police on 8 April, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.4644 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P.(MD)No.4644 of 2025
Thomas Ebenezer ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
Cyber Crime
Tiruchirapalli District
Tamil Nadu
2. The Branch Manager
HDFC Bank
West Boulevard Road Branch
Tiruchirapalli ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to de-
freeze the petitioner`s account No.2616 1000 00 3948 with the second
respondent bank on the basis of the representation given by the petitioner
dated 28.01.2025
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Harinath
For Respondents : Mr. M.Sakthi Kumar
No.1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:27:49 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.4644 of 2025
No.2 :Mr.Sevvanan Mohan
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the
respondents to de-freeze the petitioner`s account No.2616 1000 00 3948
with the second respondent bank on the basis of the representation given
by the petitioner dated 28.01.2025
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is the account holder in the second respondent bank
with account No.2616 1000 00 3948. The petitioner received
information through whatsapp to join a free stock investment training
program in the name of Tata Investment Club and he also joined the
group inorder to get training and education and as per the information he
downloaded the information from google play store with name Bulk
Angel Pro and the petitioner transferred a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards
investment to the bank accounts. When the petitioner suspected the
above said group and withdrawn the amount and he decided to stop
further process and requested for withdrawal of money. Thereafter he
received a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on 22.04.2024 in petitioner's bank
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:27:49 pm )
account from star traders. Thereafter on 18.09.2024 when the petitioner
issued cheque for a sum of Rs.56,000/- the same was returned as account
blocked. At that point of time the bank balance of the petitioner was
Rs.18,63,712.31 but unfortunately the cheque was dishonoured.
Immediately he approached the bank officials but he was unable to
transact with the same. The second respondent did not given any clear
reason for the blocking or freezing the account. Thereafter he came to
know the person involved in the fraudulent scam who received
Rs.4,50,000/-from the petitioner who had returned Rs.3,50,000/- on
22.04.2024from one Star Traders, the real culprit. The petitioner came to
know about the said person. The petitioner had invested a sum of
Rs.4,50,000/-and got only Rs.3,50,000/- returned from the fraudster . The
petitioner has lost Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore the petitioner may be
permitted to operate the account and the account has to be defreezed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would
submit that based on the request made by the first respondent they
freezed the account. Therefore if the Court passes order then they will
execute the order of the Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:27:49 pm )
4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the
first respondent would submit that in the petitioner's account suspicious
amount has been credited for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- which indulged in
cyber fraud and thereby they sent a request to the second respondent for
freezing the account, therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard both sides and persued the materials available on record.
6. There is no dispute that the petitioner has account with the
second respondent bank in account no.2616 1000 00 3948 and a sum of
Rs.3,50,000/-was credited through Star traders. According to the first
respondent star traders indulged in cyber crime frauds and thereby they
made request to the second respondent and based on the same the second
respondent bank freezed the account and no any case registered so for
and simply based on the request of the first respondent the second
respondent freezed the account.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:27:49 pm )
7. At this juncture the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Celus .vs. The
Bank Manager, Canara Bank, Thiyagaraja Nagar Branch, Tirunelveli
in WP(MD)8915 of 2024, wherein it is held as follows:
“ 6.I conclude that the suspicious transaction is only
to the tune of Rs.23,500/-. The first respondent will mark a
lean over the said amount. In other words, the petitioner
will not be allowed to withdraw the said amount till the
issue is decided. Subject to the aforesaid restraint, the
petitioner is permitted to operate the petition mentioned
account”.
8. In view of the same, in this case also the disputed amount of
Rs.3,50,000/- alone can be kept as lien over the said amount till the issue
is decided. The petitioner can be permitted to operate the account for the
remaining amount. Therefore the second respondent bank is directed to
defreeze the account of the petitioner forthwith and a sum of Rs.
3,50,000/- is alone kept a lien, i.e the petitioner has to keep the minimum
balance of Rs.3,50,000/- in his account.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:27:49 pm )
9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
No costs.
08.04.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
aav
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Cyber Crime
Tiruchirapalli District
Tamil Nadu
2. The Branch Manager
HDFC Bank
West Boulevard Road Branch
Tiruchirapalli
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:27:49 pm )
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
08.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:27:49 pm )
