Yudh Chand Bains Vs. Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. CMP No. 14137/2026 in CWP No. 2514/2022 22.06.2026 Present: Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for the applicant (writ respondent). This application has been moved by the writ respondent under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973/Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for initiation of proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 191/193 of the Indian Penal Code against the non-applicant (writ petitioner). CWP No. 2514/2022, wherein this application has been moved was disposed of on 10.05.2022 with following order: - “Notice. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s): - (I) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondent Bank to afford one more opportunity to pay back the loan, within a reasonable time. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to not to take any coercive action against the petitioner till the final disposal of the representation which is pending before the respondents as Annexure P-7." 2. At the time of hearing, a very innocuous prayer was made by the petitioner that his representation Annexure P-7 be ordered to be decided by the respondent in a time bound manner. 3. As observed above, the prayer being innocuous is allowed and respondent-Bank is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, Annexure P-7 within a period of two weeks from today by passing a speaking/reason order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. 4. It is expected that respondent-Bank shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner till the final disposal of the representation. It is made clear that the instant order is being passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent in future. In the meanwhile, petitioner shall ensure that he shall not cause any depreciation to the value of the property. 5. In view of this, the instant petition is disposed of. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.” The above-extracted order disposing of the writ petition was passed in the presence of learned counsel for the present applicant (writ respondent). Admittedly, the order was implemented by the applicant (writ respondent), consequently, upon consideration of writ petitioner's case, the same was rejected. Almost four years after the aforesaid decision, this application has been moved. Though, in support of the application, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant (writ respondent) has relied upon James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. [(SLP (Crl.) No. 9783/2023] decided on 13.08.2024, however, in my considered view, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of the order passed in the writ petition on 10.05.2022, that too in the presence of learned counsel for the applicant (writ respondent), and its subsequent implementation by the applicant (writ respondent) by rejecting the case of the non- applicant (writ petitioner), no further action by passing any order on this application is called for. It is for the applicant (writ respondent) to seek appropriate remedy, as may be available to it in law, for proceeding against the non-applicant (writ petitioner). Accordingly, the application is disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 22nd June, 2026 (Rohit)