PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner-Bank has, inter alia, prayed for quashing of Notice issued to it under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 7 of 2018 dtd. 15/1/2018 registered under Ss. 420, 465, 471,467, 468 and 417 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station New Shimla and also for issuing Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment direction to Police Station, New Shimla to lodge an FIR on the complaint(s) made by the petitioner.

(2.) It appears that on a complaint filed by Canara Bank, the above stated FIR stands registered against one Brijesh Kumar (respondent No.3). In the course of investigation of said FIR, a Notice has been issued to the petitioner-bank in which it is mentioned that Brijesh Kumar, on the strength of some forged documents, was able to obtain loan from Canara Bank to purchase a Nissan Terrano Vehicle on 3/3/2017. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that accused Brijesh Kumar had raised loan on the said vehicle, from the petitioner-bank also and the vehicle was in possession of the petitioner-bank. In this background, the petitioner-bank was called upon to produce the vehicle before the police and disclose that on what basis the vehicle was impounded by the bank.

(3.) In my considered view, petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the said Notice is misconceived. If during the course of investigation in an FIR certain facts have come in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer and a Notice has been issued under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner-bank through its authorized officer can answer the points raised in the Notice. However, there is no case made out to quash this Notice issued under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C. as it is not understood what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner-bank if certain information has been sought by the Investigating Officer from the bank with regard to an FIR lodged against an accused, who has also raised loan from petitioner bank.