The main judgment was passed in the case of Writ Petition No.3771 of 2005.
However, the companyplainant filed an application before the learned Magistrate on or about 6.7.2004 informing the learned Court that a companypromise had been entered into by and between the accused and the bank pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, an order was passed, directing As the companypromise has been taken place between the companyplainant and the accused which is being proclaimed by Ex.4, the companyplainant dont want to proceed further with the companyplaint, the order is being passed to withdraw the inquiry.
It is to be informed to the companycerned Police Station.
By an order dated 11.6.2004, the learned Magistrate upon companysideration of the said allegations directed as under The companyplaint is hereby ordered to be registered as the Inquiry Case and is ordered to be sent to Rander Police Station under Section 156 3 for the Police Investigation.
Questioning the legality and validity thereof, the appellants filed Writ Petitions before the High Court.
As such in numbermal circumstances, the petitioners who are depositors of the bank can be said as third party to the programmes of the companyplaint and subsequent there to in case of S.M.S. Jayaraj Supra , the case before the Apex Court was pertaining to the grant of licence for liquor and, therefore, while companysidering the question of locus standi it was observed that the appellant before the Apex Court was the person, who was having the business in the area can have locus.
P.C. or at the time when the settlement purshis was filed and the learned Magistrate passed the offer of recalling the inquiry in the month of July 2004.
Some of the borrowers had mortgaged their properties with the bank.
Before the High Court, a companytention was raised that once a companyplaint is sent for registration of the first information report and investigation on the allegations companytained therein, the learned Magistrate had numberjurisdiction to recall the order.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
These appeals arising out of a companymon judgment were taken up for hearing together.
Alleging companymission of offences under Sections 406, 420, 423, 465, 477, 468, 471, 120 B , 124 and 34 of the Indian penal Code and investigation against the accused persons respondents herein, the bank filed a companyplaint petition before the Second Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat praying for a direction upon the Rander Police Station to register a companyplaint.
Appellants herein are depositors in City Cooperative Bank Ltd. the Bank , a bank incorporated and registered under the Gujarat Co operative Societies Act, 1962.
On being investigating the offence the Investigating Officer has to submit the report of Investigation on or before 12.7.2004 before this Court.
