JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13th July, 2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 576 of 2006 and order dated 11th August, 2006 passed in Crl. M. A. Nos. 8093-94/2006 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 576 of 2006.

3. The question that arises in this case in narrow compass: Should part of the impugned judgment be expunged so that it may not adversely influence on an ongoing criminal investigation? The respondent filed a criminal writ petition number 576 of 2006 with the Delhi High Court. Vide this writ petition, the respondents sought a writ of mandamus that would direct the Commissioner of Police to take action against the appellant bank. Respondent no.1 alleged that her son committed suicide as a result of the manner in which the bank’s recovery agents had repossessed her son’s motorcycle. In the first information report (F.I.R.) dated 29.11.2005, the respondent alleged that on 16th October, 2005 at about 1.00 p.m., two recovery agents (referred to as “goons”) forcibly entered her son’s bedroom and started harassing and humiliating him for the loan payments that were overdue on his two wheeler and on his personal loan.

4. According to respondent no. 1, they repossessed the vehicle taken in the presence of his friends who ridiculed him for having lost the motorcycle. It is further mentioned in the FIR that the deceased had used his motorcycle to get vegetables for his small restaurant. It is also alleged that the deceased had to carry the vegetables on his back in the absence of his motorcycle. Upon finding the deceased carrying vegetables on his back, members of the neighborhood allegedly made snide comments. The deceased finally broke down before his wife and allegedly stated that he had never faced such a humiliation and disgrace in his entire life. On that very day, while his wife was washing clothes, the deceased went inside the small inner room and hung himself to death. We reiterate that this version of the events is found in the FIR and is thus an allegation at this time.

5. To ascertain the veracity of these assertions, the High Court ordered the Police to file reports as to the status of the investigation against the bank. The High Court later reviewed the two status reports that were filed by the Police. It found them unsatisfactory and accordingly, the High Court directed the Investigating Officer to:

“conclude the investigation into the matter as expeditiously as possible and take necessary action against those who may be found guilty of abetting the deceased to commit suicide.”

In addition, the High Court stated that:

“Para 1: “... the vehicle for which the loan was taken was repossessed by the musclemen employed by ICICI Bank.

Para 3: “...the proximate cause of death of the deceased that led him to commit suicide was on account of humiliation caused by the Bank people from where loan was taken by him.”

Para 4: “The modus-operandi employed by the banks like ICICI for realization of their loan amount and for recovering the possession of the vehicle against which loans are given is extra legal and by no stretch of imagination they can be permitted to employ musclemen and goons for recovery of their dues even from a defaulting party.”

6. The appellant bank claimed that it was aggrieved by the observations made by the High Court in paragraphs 1, 3 & 4 of the impugned order. The bank asked the High Court to clarify or delete paras 1, 3 and 4. It did so by way of an application for impleadment as well as an application for clarification/deletion/modification under section 482 (saving of inherent power of High Court) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973. According to the appellant bank, the observations made by the High Court were unjustified and unnecessary for deciding the case.

7. In an order dated 11.8.2006, the High Court declined to expunge the impugned observations because it