JUDGMENT :

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 22.02.2023 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.P.No.21836 of 2012.)

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 22.02.2023 made in M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.P.No.21836 of 2012.

2. In the said Miscellaneous Petition, the original writ petitioner had made a prayer that the Court would be pleased to cause an inquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the appellant herein and its officials and direct filing of complaint against them. The learned Single Judge passed an order directing the Registry to frame a complaint and file the same before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. The operative portion of the order contained in paragraphs Nos.17 and 18 reads as hereunder :-

"17. In light of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation in directing the Deputy Registrar, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras to frame a complaint, in terms of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. for transmission to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai for framing appropriate charges and taking further action in accordance with law.

18. The on-going proceedings before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai are stated to be fixed on 23.02.2023. Let the Deputy Registrar, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras do the needful in terms of the present order within a period of four (4) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order."

3. The brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of present appeal are that the original writ petitioner namely, R.Selvaraj filed W.P.No.21836 of 2012 challenging the order of the Banking Ombudsman, Chennai, dated 02.04.2012 in complaint No.201112006004997 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited to furnish full and final settlement of accounts in respect of the loan SA-118003. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he obtained a loan from the Bank for a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on 27.07.2006. Thereafter, he was regularly paying the monthly installments and he paid a sum of Rs.23,10,352/- for seven months. At that time, in March 2007, he decided to pay the entire loan amount by selling his property. By the letter, dated 22.03.2007, the Bank confirmed that it would settle the account on payment of Rs.1,70,00,000/- and issued a No Due Certificate. Accordingly, vide D.D.No.015980, dated 26.03.2007, the said amount was paid and the original title deeds were also released and the mortgage was cancelled. The letter, dated 11.04.2007, acknowledging the full satisfaction of the above amount, was also issued. The writ petitioner requested the furnishing of the statement of accounts. However, the same was not furnished despite repeated representations and reminders. Upon calculation, the petitioner's auditor informed him that the Bank had collected an excess sum of Rs.28,26,294/-. Therefore, after making further representation, the writ petitioner approached the Banking Ombudsman. By the order, dated 02.04.2012, the complaint was rejected and hence the Writ Petition.

4. In the Writ Petition, a counter-affidavit was filed by the Bank specifically contesting that the claim of the petitioner is false. It was further stated that knowing fully well that the Bank would not be able to retrieve the account, the petitioner is seeking to reopen the loan account by making false claim only to unjustly enrich himself. The counter is also to effect that the amount collected by the Bank was towards foreclosure and other charges, and that the auditor's calculation is erroneous. However, pending the Writ Petition, the first respondent was called for meetings on 08.10.2012 and 22.12.2012.

5. On 27.12.2012, the Bank deposited a sum of Rs.14,30,509/- in the account of the writ petitioner. Since the Bank did not respond to the letter of the writ petitioner dated 12.01.2013 asking for the basis of the said amount deposited