The investigating officer cannot issue prohibitory directions under Section 91 of the CrPC regarding property transactions; such actions must comply with the M.P.I.D. Act.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners in all the matters and learned APP for the respondent. In all these matters notices dated 14^th February 2024 under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure issued by the Superintendent of Police (UOW), Ahmednagar to the Collector of Stamps, Collector Office, Ahmednagar pursuant to the First Information Report vide Crime No.121 of 2022 registered with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmedngar for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3 Maharashtra Protection of Interest of depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (for short “the M.P.I.D. Act”), are challenged.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Deshmukh instructed by Advocate Mr. Chavan submits that out of four petitioners, petitioners in Writ Petition No.1073 of 2024 and 1142 of 2024 have been added as accused subsequently to the offence. However, the petitioners in other two petitions are neither the accused nor they are the borrowers, still the impugned order which is alleged to be under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure restrains the Collector of Stamps from registering the sale transaction or transfer transaction in respect of their property and to communicate such thing to the respective sub- registrars. The said notices are illegal and therefore, deserve to be set aside.

3. Per contra, the learned APP, after relying upon the fact that the offence has been registered under Section 3 of the the M.P.I.D. Act which provides for protection to the property of the investors, submits that therefore, such steps have been taken in the investigation. 

4. Perusal of the impugned notice dated 14^th February 2024 shows that it has been given under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the investigating officer to the Collector of Stamps. If we consider Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then it enables the Court or any officer in charge of a police station to issue summons to produce document or other thing. The said power can be exercised when any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, then the Court may issue a summons or such officer may pass a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order. In the impugned notice, after giving names of the accused persons, it is stated that the offence has been registered against them and the Collector of Stamps was directed to give information, as to where the immovable or movable property of those accused persons is in Ahmednagar District and then direction has been given that the said property should be preserved. Further it has been stated that :-

English translation of the same is as under :-

“It is requested to inform the concerned Sub Registrar about the non-purchase and sale of immovable/movable property in the names of the accused in the said crime and also about the non-registration of any transfer of income.”

(Translated by Senior Translator and Interpreter, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)

5. As aforesaid, Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not empower the investigating officer to issue any directions to a person to do or not to do a particular thing. That Section only enables the production of the document or thing and therefore, the impugned order does not conform to the requirements of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By issuing such directions the investigating officer is transgressing his powers and there is no explanation as to why the provisions of the the M.P.I.D. Act, which empowers the designated Court to take steps, were not adhered to.

6. Learned APP has submitted that even after the registration