IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.P.No.10211 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.11049 & 11052 of 2026 R.Renuka ..Petitioner Vs

1. The Reserve Bank of India, Banking Supervision cell, Fort Glacis, No.16 Fort Street, George Town, Chennai - 600 001.

2. The Federal Bank Limited, Having its office at Vigilance Department, Federal Towers, Post Box No.103, Aluva, Kerala - 683 101.

3. The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore.

..Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 23.01.2026 passed by second respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.A.Prabhushankar For Respondents : Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh Special Government Pleader for R3

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated

23.01.2026 passed by the second respondent.

2. The present writ petitioner is a partner of the Firm who was the borrower from the second respondent Bank where subsequently the Bank seems to have come to the conclusion that fraud has been committed by the borrower along with the partners. In this regard, a show cause notice had been issued as to why action should not be taken against the present petitioner who was the partner of the Firm and a reply had been given, based on which, final order has been passed titled as ‘Order on Show Cause Notice’ dated 23.01.2026 whereby, the following conclusion has been reached by the Bank:

“In the above circumstances, the Committee is of the considered view that in the light of the magnitude and nature of fraud committed by the firm and the way in which the same was executed, contention of a partner that she had no active participation in business, that ignorant of its day-to-day activities and made bonafide attempt to clear the dues to the bank etc., cannot be accepted as mitigating factor to justifyher case. Accordingly, committee found that Ms.Renuka is also responsible for perpetration of fraud being partner of the firm which had committed fraud. Hence, fraud is reported against you.”

Challenging the same, this writ petition has been moved.

3. Heard Mr.B.A.Prabhushankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who would submit that, at one point of time, she has left the partnership firm, therefore, the other partners have not been properly enquired and without enquiring the other partners properly, an unwarranted and unnecessary conclusion has been reached by the Bank which is reflected in the order which is impugned herein, therefore, this order is liable to be interfered by this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is his contention.

4. We are not impressed with the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner because of the simple reason that, if the Bank has come to the conclusion that fraud has been committed against the Bank where the present petitioner is also one of the parties who participated in the fraudulent action allegedly based on which if any punitive action is taken by set the criminal law in motion and that can be faced by the petitioner in the manner known to law before the appropriate legal forum. Therefore, at this juncture, at the threshold, the order dated 23.01.2026 cannot be questioned by the present petitioner invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India as this Court does not have such jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the conclusion reached by the Bank as to whether the fraud has been committed by the petitioner or not under the punitive provisions of the Penal law, therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

(R.S.K., J.) (N.S., J.)

09-04-2026 vji To

1. The Re