The Authorised Officer, v. The Asst. Commissioner of Police,

ORDER The petitioner, the Authorised Officer of the Asset Recovery Branch of the Bank of India, has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction to forbear the first respondent and his men or officers subordinate to him from proceeding further under the notice, dated 20.02.2026.

¶2The contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent firm, M/s.Goal Closures, had availed loan and credit facilities from the bank on the collateral securities of the immovable property of the second respondent. Since the loan has become Non-Performing Assets, the bank had invoked provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and issued demand notice on 05.04.2023 followed by possession notice, dated 15.06.2024 and the sale notice, dated 17.10.2024 against the property of the second respondent. The second respondent challenged the sale notice, dated

17.10.2024 by filing S.A.No.926 of 2024 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore on 19.11.2024 and a conditional order of stay was granted directing the second respondent to pay the entire outstanding amount of Rs.13,55,09,129.06 ps in eight installments of Rs.1,69,39,000/-. The conditional order was not complied with. Thereafter, for one time settlement, the second respondent had approached the petitioner and it also failed. The bank was proceeding against the second respondent till the month of January, 2026 and the possession notice was issued on

28.01.2026. The petitioner intends to take symbolic possession of the assets along inventory of the machineries. At that time, the inventory of the articles found in the Company, was recorded, photographed and videographed. The petitioner, on 13.02.2026, had drawn panchanama under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and took possession of the secured assets.

¶3This being so, the bank received a notice from the first respondent on 20.02.2026 calling the bank official to appear before the Police. The petitioner had only acted following the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the orders obtained from the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The first respondent Police, in collusion with the respondent Nos.2 and 3, with a malafide intention, had sent a tainted notice, dated 20.02.2026 under Section 173(3) of B.N.S.S without any authority and force of law. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the same.

¶4The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent

submits

that

enquiry

was

conducted

in C.No.14/P/ACP/CCB-1/CC/2026, on 19.02.2026 and found that the issue between the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had been resolved and there is no further enquiry pending with the first respondent against the petitioner. The report is extracted hereunder:-

¶5Finding that the Police had closed the enquiry and the interim notice has lost its relevance and the case has been closed, recording the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.04.2026 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order : yes/no grs To

¶1The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch – 1, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. grs and W.P.M.P.Crl.No.141 of 2026

08.04.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.04.2026 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR and W.P.M.P.Crl.No.141 of 2026 The Authorised Officer, The Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch, Star House, 1st Floor, No.324, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore – 641 001. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch – 1, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. 2. V.Ponnusamy 3. Cheralathan Ramakarishnan .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent and his men or officers subordinate to him from proceeding further under the notice, dated 20.02.2026 under Section 173(3) of B.N.S.S Act and interfering and preventing the petitioner and the other officers of the secured creditor in their exercising statutory powers conferred under the SARFAESI Act to realize the security interest created over the secured asset. For Petitioner : Mrs.G.Srividhya Iyer, for Mr.F.B.Benjamin George For Respondents : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor, for R1