P.Santhanam vs The Superintendent Of Police
2025 Latest Caselaw 4101 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4101 Mad
Judgement Date : 18 March, 2025

Madras High Court

P.Santhanam vs The Superintendent Of Police on 18 March, 2025

                                                                                      W.P.(MD)No.22707 of 2024

                        BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 18.03.2025

                                                       CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

                                           W.P.(MD)No.22707 of 2024


                     P.Santhanam                                                           : Petitioner

                                                             Vs.


                     1. The Superintendent of Police,
                     Madurai District.

                     2. The Inspector of Police,
                     Checkanurani Police Station,
                     Madurai District.

                     3. The Bank Manager,
                     State Bank of India,
                     Nagamalaipudukkottai Branch,
                     Madurai District.                                                   : Respondents

                     PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to
                     de-freeze the petitioner's above savings account No. 40028660275,
                     maintained with the 3rd respondent bank, and allow the petitioner to
                     operate the same as usual by considering the petitioners representation
                     dated 03.09.2024.


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 11:50:38 am )

                     1/8
                                                                                       W.P.(MD)No.22707 of 2024

                                  For Petitioners      : Mr.S.Srikanth
                                  For Respondents : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran
                                                        Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
                                                        for R1 & R2
                                                        Mr.N.Dilip Kumar for R3


                                                        ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a

mandamus, directing the third respondent to de-freeze the petitioner's

above savings account No.40028660275, maintained with the third

respondent bank and allow him to operate the same by considering his

representation dated 03.09.2024.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the

learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the issue involved in

this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated

07.12.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.28919 of 2023. The learned counsel

for the petitioner further submitted that even 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 11:50:38 am )

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing

on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, submitted that a case has been

registered against the petitioner for offences committed under the NDPS

Act and the petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No. 4.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third

respondent bank would not have much to say as he is a formal party in

this writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

materials available on record.

6. Since the issue is squarely covered by the order of this

Court dated 07.12.2023, in W.P.(MD) No.28919 of 2023, it would be

appropriate to extract the relevant paragraphs hereunder:

“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:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 11:50:38 am )

“ 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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 11:50:38 am )

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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 11:50:38 am )

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.”