Read Time: 06 minutes

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday refused to interfere in the FIR filed against Yes Bank officials in the multi-crore share scam. Bank had also challenged the Inquiry Officer’s notices for attachment of the shares deposited in the bank.

The division bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi dismissed Bank’s petition on the ground of availability of statutory remedy.

Court declined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 stating that it lacked sufficient material. Court also opined that “the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate investigation.”

Court also said that the petitioner bank has the option to challenge the notice of attachment of shares in the Magistrate's Court which is an efficacious statutory remedy therefore, it won’t interfere.

An FIR, in this case, was registered on September 12, 2020, against former chairman of Yes Bank Managing Director Shah Rana, Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of Video Con Group, VN Dhoot, Chairman of Yes Bank Group, Sanjay etc. at Noida Police Station Gautam Budh Nagar Sector 20.

Accused were booked under Sections 420, 467, 468, 409, 107, 109, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Also, the Investigating Officer had issued a notice on 5th November, 2021 to the bank, attaching shares worth 44,53,48,990 crore deposited with it under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Reportedly, it was alleged in the FIR that Yes Bank officials had put pressure on Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Subhash Chandra to invest crores of rupees in the shares of DTH, Videocon etc.

The plaintiff had also said that for not doing so, he was threatened with the return of the loan taken from the bank and damages in other ways. He suffered loss of crores of rupees through fake documents and sororities etc, he had stated.

The investigation of the case was later handed over to the Special Investigation Team (SIT). The Investigating Officer issued a notice to the bank, attaching shares deposited with it and ordered not to use it in any way.

This order and the FIR were challenged in the petition.

Objecting to Bank’s plea, the Public Prosecutor had contended that investigation is still on and the investigating agency is collecting evidence, therefore, court must reject petitioner’s plea.

Hearing both the parties, court noted that against the notice dated November 5, 2021 the bank has a statutory remedy to approach Magistrate Court under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC for appropriate relief.

Court further observed, “it is well settled that the High Court should normally refrain from giving prima facie decisions, in cases where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court.”

Therefore stressing that in the present case, the issues involved are of magnitude and could not be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material, court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title:Yes Bank Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others