WP Crl.(MD)/3552/2026 of Jegan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by on 2 November 2026

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking appropriate relief in respect of the debit freeze imposed on his savings bank account bearing no. 9171000844 maintained with the 2nd respondent bank.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, on 28.11.2025 and a subsequent date in December 2025, he received e-mail notifications from the 2nd respondent bank informing him that a debit freeze had been marked on his bank account pursuant to a cyber crime complaint acknowledgement No. 30812250098782.

3. According to the petitioner, the notifications did not disclose the complaint number, name and address of the police station concerned, the details of the investigating authority, or the particulars of the order or direction pursuant to which the debit freeze had been imposed.

4. The petitioner contends that, in the absence of the aforesaid particulars, he has been deprived of an effective opportunity to ascertain the reasons for the restriction imposed on his account and to take appropriate steps to seek its removal. It is further stated that the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 27.05.2026 to the respondent

WP Crl.(MD) No. 3552 of 2026 bank requesting appropriate action, but no decision has been communicated to him till date. Aggrieved by the continued restriction on the operation of his bank account, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is true that, where a bank account is suspected to be connected with a cyber crime, the competent police authority may, in accordance with law, issue appropriate directions to the bank for the purpose of investigation. The bank is ordinarily required to comply with lawful directions issued by the competent authority. However, the mere fact that a debit freeze has been imposed pursuant to a cyber crime complaint does not dispense with the requirement of identifying the authority at whose instance the restriction was imposed and furnishing such particulars as may lawfully be disclosed to the account holder.

7. In the present case, the petitioner specifically contends that the e- mail notifications issued by the 2nd respondent bank did not disclose the particulars necessary for him to identify the complaint or approach the competent authority for redressal. The petitioner has also submitted a representation dated 27.05.2026, which, according to him, remains unaddressed.

WP Crl.(MD) No. 3552 of 2026

8. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner's representation requires consideration by the 2nd respondent bank. The bank shall ascertain the authority and the legal basis, pursuant to which, the debit freeze was imposed and furnish the petitioner with the available particulars of the complaint, the police station or investigating agency concerned, the complaint or reference number, and the relevant direction or order, subject to any lawful restriction on disclosure. If the debit freeze was imposed pursuant to a direction issued by a police authority or any other competent authority, the bank shall also inform the petitioner of the procedure for approaching that authority for appropriate relief.

9. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying cyber crime complaint or directing the bank to disregard any subsisting and lawful direction issued by a competent authority. The question whether the debit freeze should be lifted shall be considered in accordance with law and in the light of the relevant directions issued by the competent authority.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent bank to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.05.2026 and communicate a reasoned response to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If no subsisting lawful direction or other legal basis exists for continuing the

WP Crl.(MD) No. 3552 of 2026 debit freeze, the 2nd respondent bank shall take appropriate steps to remove the restriction in accordance with law. If a valid direction remains in force, the bank shall communicate the position to the petitioner and comply with the direction until it is modified or withdrawn by the competent authority or otherwise ceases to operate in accordance with law. 02-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No skn To

1. The Superintendent of police Superintendent of police office Trichy

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai

WP Crl.(MD) No. 3552 of 2026 K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J. skn WP Crl.(MD) No. 3552 of 2026 02-11-2026