No entity, including financial institutions, can act contrary to court orders, reaffirming the principle that all are subject to the rule of law.

ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

“Whosoever he may be, howsoever high, is not above the rule of law.” “No one is above the law” underpins the whole of today’s legal system and the same is the essence of rule of law.

Rule of Law is a fundamental concept in democratic societies that refers to the principles that all individuals and institutions, including governments are subject to and accountable to the same laws and legal system. This means that no one is above the law and everyone must follow the law, regardless of their position or status.

Today, the rule of law is recognized as a fundamental principle of democratic society around the world and is enshrined in the legal and constitutional system in many countries.

Whether any one like the petitioner can act against any order or directions passed by the Trial Court and upheld by this Court? This is the precise issue involved in the instant criminal misc. petition.

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Kota in Criminal Case No.12377/2023 (State Vs. Hukum Chand and Ors.) arising out of the F.I.R. No.43/2011 registered at Police Station Bapawar, District Kota (Rural), whereby a direction has been issued to the petitioner-Bank-Axis Bank Ltd. (for short “petitioner-Bank”) to refund/ deposit the amount appropriated by it, which was lying in custody of the Bank, in the form of Fixed Deposit (for short, “the FD”).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an order was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, “the DRT”) on 20.04.2018, in the recovery proceedings pending against the borrower, by which the petitioner-Bank was permitted for temporary appropriation of the Original Application amount (for short, “the OA amount”) without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the defendants.

3. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order was unsuccessfully assailed by the borrower before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short, “the DRAT”), however, the appeal was rejected, hence, pursuant to the liberty so granted by the DRT, the petitioner-bank has appropriated the amount lying under the FD. Counsel submits that now, by passing the order impugned, a direction has been issued to the petitioner-Bank to refund/redeposit the aforesaid amount, failing which action would be taken against the Managing Directors/ CEO of petitioner-Axis Bank and the concerned Bank Manager. Counsel submits that such direction cannot be issued by the learned Magistrate as the same is in contravention to the order passed by the DRT. Counsel submits that prior to passing of the aforesaid order by the DRT, an application was submitted by the petitioner-Bank seeking permission to withdraw the aforesaid amount before the Court below, however, the said application was rejected vide order dated 03.06.2013 against which the petitioner-bank approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3705/2013, however, the same was withdrawn on 17.09.2014 with liberty to initiate the recovery proceedings against the defaulting Officers.

Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid recovery proceedings, initiated before the DRT, an order was passed on 20.04.2018 by the DRT allowing the petitioner for temporary appropriation of the OA amount, hence, petitioners have not committed any illegality in appropriating the aforesaid amount. Theref