Priya Soparkar v. Bank of Maharashtra & Ors.

Mr. Rashid Khan with Mr. Aarif Dhariwala i/by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, for the Petitioner. Ms. Ruchi P. Bagwe i/by Chittranjan, Sha, Kay Legal & Associates LLP, for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Oduvil Mohandas with Mr. Ashwin Nair and Mr. J. P. Kapadia i/by Little & Co., for the Respondent No.3(RBI). CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATED: 6th AUGUST 2026. PC:-

Heard Mr. Rashid Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. We have also heard Ms. Ruchi P. Bagwe, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1-Bank and Mr. Oduvil Mohandas, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3- RBI. None has appeared for the Respondent No.2.

The Writ Petitioner is the widow of Late Vijay Anangpal Singh who died in a tragic accident on 9th February, 2023. Late PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR 903 WP 4637-24-OS.DOC Vijay Anangpal Singh, during his lifetime, had availed a loan from the Respondent No.1-Bank. After his demise, the Petitioner being his widow, had approached the bank on 2nd August, 2023, producing the death certificate of her husband. The allegation of the Petitioner is that the bank official(s) had not only compelled her to sign certain documents in a manner which was prejudicial to her interest, but had also wrongfully restrained the Petitioner from leaving the bank premises for about three hours, unless she complied with demand of the Bank Manager. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant Writ Petition, making the following prayers :- “A. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction, ordering and directing the Respondent No.1 to return to the Petitioner the documents executed by her on 2nd August, 2023; B. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction, ordering and directing the Respondent No.1 to produce before this Hon'ble Court CCTV Footage of 2nd August 2023 from 12 Noon till 3.30 p.m.

In support of the prayers made in the Writ Petition, Mr. Rashid Khan, learned counsel has argued that the Petitioner is demanding copy of the CCTV footages in order to establish her claim that the Bank Manager had compelled the Petitioner to execute documents although there was no requirement on her part to do so under the law. 903 WP 4637-24-OS.DOC

Mr. Khan has further submitted that his client has lodged a complaint before the Ombudsman. Therefore, the relief prayed for be granted.

The Petitioner’s case has been contested by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 who has submitted that the learned Ombudsman has closed the complaint of the Petitioner as the same was found to be devoid of any merit.

Be that as it may, after hearing the submission of Mr. Khan, it appears that the Petitioner is primarily seeking production of CCTV footages to establish her claim that the wrongful treatment was meeted out to her by the Bank Manager. However, the fact remains that even if the allegation of the Petitioner turns out to be correct, even then, it would be necessary for her to lodge a complaint of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, which are punishable offence as per Sections 126 and 127 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The Petitioner has not made any such complaint. In the absence of any complaint to that effect, we fail to understand as to what purpose will be served by calling the CCTV footages. 903 WP 4637-24-OS.DOC

In so far as the complaint before the Banking Ombudsman is concerned, the same has admittedly being closed. Therefore, it cannot be said that as on date any complaint pertaining to the alleged conduct of the bank official is pending before any Competent Forum.

Situated thus, we close the Writ Petition, by granting liberty to the Petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedy, as may be permissible under the law. (ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) {