Judgment : 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant criminal original petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in setting aside the direction given by the first respondent to freeze/seize operations of the petitioner's savings bank account at (i) M/s. State Bank of India, SB A/c.No.00000010620881863 in IIT Branch, Adyar, Chennai – 600 036, (ii) M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, Medavakkam Branch, Chennai 600 100 savings bank A/c.No.182201000000380 (iii) M/s. Andhra Bank, Medavakkam branch, Chennai – 600 100 savings bank A/c.No.11901100008943 (iv) M/s. Karur Vysya Bank, Velachery Branch, Chennai – 600 042 savings bank A/c.No.1265172000005787. 2. It comes to me to known that the office of the Registry has raised the following queries: “1. It may be stated how the petition is maintainable under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.OP.S.R.Nos.5554 and 5555/2014. 2. Other side should be served. 3. Freezing order of Bank to be filed in Typed set. 4. Counsel should be signed in Miscellaneous Petition.” 3. It transpires that the Learned counsel for the petitioner has represented the papers with the following endorsement on 24.2.2014. “As the petitioner have no other alternative or efficacious remedy, he had approached this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. There is no written order directing freezing of petitioner's Bank Account. It is only an oral order. No written order is provided despite a representation from petitioner. Return complied with and re-presented.” 4. Based on the office note of the Registry, the criminal original petition was directed to be listed for maintainability as per order dated 26.2.2014. On 19.6.2014 the office of the Registry was directed to number the criminal original petition, if it was otherwise in order. A perusal of the contents of the grounds raised in the criminal original petition by the petitioner indicates that the first respondent/State by the Inspector of Police, CBI ACB, Chennai, had not shown or explained to him as to what was the object sought to be achieved by issuing seize operations of the bank account. Further, the petitioner himself in compliance of the return made by the Registry has clearly stated that “There is no written order directing freezing of the petitioner's Bank Account.” 5. Be that as it may, now, on behalf of the first respondent, a counter affidavit was filed, inter alia, to the effect that ..... Further, the petitioner himself in compliance of the return made by the Registry has clearly stated that “There is no written order directing freezing of the petitioner's Bank Account.” 5. Be that as it may, now, on behalf of the first respondent, a counter affidavit was filed, inter alia, to the effect that ..... “after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner/accused and others under Section 120-B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently substantive offences thereof and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 5.3.2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. Moreover, it is also made mention of in the counter that after completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, it was not necessary to continue the freezing of the accounts further and hence the concerned banks were instructed to allow the operations in the frozen accounts of the petitioner and his wife. Added further in this regard, the letters were also issued to the Branch Managers of Andhra Bank, Medvakkam Branch, Chennai, IOB, Medavakkam, Chennai, Karur Vysya Bank, Velachery, Chennai, SBI, IIT Branch, Adyar, Chennai, Corporation Bank, Medavakkam, Chennai, City Union Bank, SRM University Branch Kattangalathur and Axis Bank, Velachery, Chennai, with a request to allow the operations of the accounts of the accused/petitioner and his wife. That apart, letters were also issued to the Branch Managers of concerned bank by speed post.” 6. Continuing further, it is represented on behalf of the first respondent that the concerned banks were instructed to allow the operations of all the savings bank account and deposit account of accused/petitioner and his wife, which were also duly informed to the accused/petitioner. 7. In view of the fact that the concerned banks, as referred to supra, were instructed to allow the operations of all the savings bank account and deposit account of the petitioner/accused and his wife, which facts were duly informed to the petitioner/accused, this Court comes to the resultant conclusion that nothing survives for adjudication in the present criminal original petition. Viewed in that perspective, the criminal original petition fails. In the result, the criminal original petition is dismissed. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.