Facts
Two alleged fraudulent withdrawals from customer accounts led to criminal cases against two persons working through an outsourcing agency.
Source reference: para. 2–5While the investigation was pending, beneficiaries and supporters allegedly obstructed the Charoda Branch and prevented its operation.
Source reference: para. 2–5The Bank sought police protection and action on its complaints under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Source reference: para. 2–5By an earlier order, the Court directed the authorities to explain their response and take steps to resume the Branch’s operations; the police subsequently reported that the Branch had reopened and banking had resumed.
Source reference: para. 2–5Issues
1. Whether further directions were required to secure the Branch’s operation and protect the Bank’s staff and customers from alleged obstruction.
Source reference: para. 1–42. Whether the Court should direct further police action on the Bank’s complaints after the Branch had reopened and banking operations had resumed.
Source reference: para. 5–6Law Applied
The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek public-law relief.
Source reference: para. 1, 3The Bank also relied on Section 36AD of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, concerning obstruction of banking business, and referred to applicable penal provisions.
Source reference: para. 1, 3These provisions and contentions were not substantively interpreted or adjudicated: the Court disposed of the petition on the basis that its earlier directions had been complied with and operations had resumed.
Source reference: para. 6Reasoning
The Court noted that the police authorities had filed affidavits reporting that the Branch reopened on 28 September 2026 and regular banking operations resumed.
Source reference: para. 5In light of that development and the compliance with the Court’s order of 24 September 2026, it considered further relief unnecessary.
Source reference: para. 6The Court did not determine the allegations of obstruction or decide the Bank’s statutory and penal-law contentions on their merits.
Source reference: para. 6Holding
The Court held that no further order was required and disposed of the petition.
It directed that the relevant process be carried out in accordance with law and left it open to any person with a surviving grievance to approach the appropriate forum.
Source reference: para. 8Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
Banking Regulation Act, 19491
Original Court PDF
I D B I BANK LIMITEDvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
