The court emphasized that the interim order regarding the appointment of a forensic auditor was specific to the facts and circumstances of the case and would not set a precedent.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

CRL.M.A. 15641/2021 (for modification)

1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of respondent nos. 2,3,4,5,6,9, 10 and 11 seeking recall/ modification of the order dated 02.06.2021.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the notice in the main petition was issued on 26.03.2021 but till date no notice has been served to the applicants and the order dated 02.06.2021 was passed ex-parte and the applicant/respondent Banks recently became aware of the proceedings when they were contacted by the newly appointed forensic auditors. It is further submitted by him that the petitioners have not approached with clean hands and have blatantly, and in a mala fide manner also suppressing material facts and misleading this Hon'ble Court.

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the order dated 02.06.2021 will not only prejudice the outcome of other on-going proceedings involving the petitioners but it will also have the potential to open 'pandora box' and may set a precedent in respect to similarly placed matters. It is further submitted that in the order dated 02.06.2021 in the last few lines which reads as "the directions to examine the matter afresh between the period 01.10.2015 to 30.06.2018. The said Forensic Audit Firm shall give its report within 5 months and till that time no further coercive action be taken against the petitioners.", it is clear that this Hon'ble Court has granted the interim protection only till the filling of the fresh forensic audit report. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the fresh audit report which was directed by this Hon'ble Court has already been filed and the same has been recorded in the order dated 20.05.2022. Therefore, it is prayed that the directions issued in the interim order dated 02.06.2021 be modified as the subject matter pertaining to that order has been complied with.

4. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants would be satisfied if interim order dated 02.06.2021 with regard to the appointment of forensic auditor may not be treated as precedent as the same was passed in the facts of this case.

5. In the present case, the contention of learned counsel for the applicants - Banks that the interim order dated 02.06.2021 may not be treated as a precedent is concerned, the same has force in it and the interim order dated 02.06.2021 with regard to the appointment of the forensic auditor was passed keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and on the specific ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a matter of common knowledge that each case revolves around its own facts and circumstances. Therefore, the interim order dated 02.06.2021 with regard to the appointment of forensic auditor is applicable to this case only as the same was passed in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and shall have no precedential value.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.A. 20604/2022 (vacation of stay)

7. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the respondent/CBI seeking clarification/vacation of the order dated 02.06.2021 passed in this petition.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant/CBI that interim order dated 02.06.2021 was passed only till the filing of forensic audit report. It is further submitted that the said forensic audit report has been filed which is recorded vide order dated 20.05.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that the interim order dated 02.06.2021 has outlived its life.

9. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant that this Court after hearing the petitioner at length granted the interim protection to the petitioner and the same was continued time and again and attained finalit