The Court emphasized the importance of abiding by the order of the sole Arbitrator in a dispute subject to arbitration proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Sashikanta Mishra, J. - In the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek to challenge the notices issued by the Investigating Officers of Sundargarh Police Station and Kaniha Police Station and the order passed by the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Jamtara Branch in putting on hold the amount received by the petitioner no.1-Company from M/s. Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. towards execution of the work contract.

2. Sans unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioner no.1-Company was awarded a work contract by Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. (MCL) on 23.12.2015 and for the purpose of executing such work, the petitioners executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 16.03.2016 with one Prakash Chandra Mohanty (opposite party no.6). Because of certain disputes relating to performance arising between the petitioner no.1-Company and opposite party no.6, the MOU was terminated in accordance with law and he was duly intimated of such fact by letter dated 13.09.2018. In course of execution of the MOU, opposite party no.6 was authorized to operate the bank account of the petitioner-company but after termination of the MOU, such authority was withdrawn with due intimation to the concerned bank. The opposite party no.6 thereafter filed a complaint being ICC Case No.7 of 2019 in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh, which was sent to IIC Town Police Station Sundargarh for registration and investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The said order is under challenge before this Court in CRLMC No. 1203 of 2020. However, by such time, the IIC, Town Police Station, Sundargarh basing on the order of learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh, treated the complaint as FIR and registered Town P.S. Case No. 61 of 2019 under Sections 168/406/424/506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation.

3. The sum and substance of the complaint is that on 21.01.2019 when the complainant-opposite party no.6 was checking the balance in the joint account in SBI, Sundargarh Branch, he found that a sum of Rs. 24 lakhs had been transferred to other accounts without his signature. In course of investigation, the I.O., Sundargarh Police Station (opposite party no.2) issued notice dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure-1) to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Jamtara Branch, Jharkhand (opposite party no.4) as also to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Sundargarh Branch (Annexure-2) purportedly under Section 102 Cr.P.C. directing the said Bank authorities to stop withdrawal of payment made in the bank accounts of the petitioner no.1-Company by Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. Subsequently, the IIC, Kaniha P.S. also issued similar notice. Consequently, the Bank authorities vide their decision dated 24.03.2021 kept on hold the withdrawal of amounts as aforesaid. The notices issued by the Investigating Officers of Sundargarh P.S. and Kaniha P.S. and the decision taken by the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Jamtara Branch as above are impugned in the present application.

4. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P.K. Maharaj, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, who appeared for opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3; and Mr. Ambika Prasad Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no. 4. Be it noted here that despite sufficient service of notice, there was no appearance from the side of opposite parties no. 5 & 6

5. In course of hearing, Mr. Ajay Kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drew attention of the Court to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 22.04.2021 in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 21989 of 2020, wherein the order passed by MCL blocking payments of the petitioner pursuant to instructions received from the I.O. in P.S. Case No. 61 of 2019 was challenged. After hearing, the following order was passed:-

'The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. The Petitioner filed this petition at the stage when Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL) had issued the impugned ord