The police do not have the authority to direct the Bank to release collateral securities to a private respondent under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. unless the production of the document is necessary for an investigation, enquiry, trial or any other proceeding before the Officer or a Court.

JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The writ petitioners have challenged the conduct of the Bank of Baroda in handing over collateral securities to the private respondent no. 4 on a notice, which the writ petitioners say, was issued under section 91 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), 1973. The notice dated 11th November, 2022 was issued by the police authorities; the Investigating Officer, Bhaktinagar, Police Station, Siliguri who is the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition. The petitioners seek setting aside of this notice dated 11th November, 2022 and all steps in pursuance thereof.

2. According to learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, the petitioners filed a police complaint on 16th February, 2022 for an investigation against the private respondent which led the police to file a charge-sheet under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners also instituted a suit being CS No. 305 of 2022 before this Court claiming various reliefs against the private respondent. Counsel places the challenge on the Notice dated 11th November, 2022 which was apparently issued under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. to the Bank for release of collateral securities in favour of the private respondent.

3. Counsel submits that section 91 of the Cr. P.C. does not authorise the police to direct release of the concerned document in favour of the de facto complainant, who in this case is a private respondent. It is submitted that the Bank issued letter dated 18th November, 2022 upon receiving Notice dated 11th November, 2022 and proceeded to release the collateral securities in favour of the private respondent. According to counsel, the Notice dated 11th November, 2022 is wholly without jurisdiction. The investigating authority and the police did not have authority to request the Bank to hand over the documents to the private respondent. Counsel submits that the Bank’s reliance on the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers is misplaced since the duty envisaged therein lies in favour of the petitioner no. 1 and not the private respondent.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank of Baroda submits that the Bank had no option but to hand over the collateral securities to the private respondent upon receiving Notice dated 11th November, 2022. Counsel places the Code of Commitment of the Bank to say that the Bank in any event could not have held on to the collateral securities after the petitioner closed its credit facilities with the Bank by transferring the entire portfolio to another Bank namely, ICICI Bank Limited.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no. 4 submits that the writ petition is not maintainable since the dispute is essentially a private dispute between the petitioners and the respondent no. 4. Counsel submits that the petitioners have already filed a Civil Suit in this Court and have been unable to secure the amount claimed in the said suit. It is submitted that the writ petitioners are hence trying to get that amount in a circuitous manner in the present writ petition. Counsel submits that the action of the petitioners in directing the Bank to hold on to the collateral securities is wrongful and that once the credit facilities provided by the Bank was closed, it was the Bank’s obligation to release the collateral securities to the respondent no. 4. Counsel disputes that the Notice dated 11th November, 2022 is a Notice under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and refers to three earlier Notices dated 5th August, 2022, 10th October, 2022 and 2nd November, 2022 in this context. Counsel submits that the police officers have a duty to prevent commission of offences under section 23 of The Police Act, 1861 and that the Notice dated 11th November, 2022 was issued in exercise of this power. It is further submitted that the petitioners have the option of taking out an application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for challenging the Notice dated 11th November, 2022.

6. The facts and arguments put forth b