WP(C) 4581/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. B.R. Dey, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr s. V.L. Sinha, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 an d Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner by the present petition has prayed for a direction to the respondent bank to release certain articles as well as cash amount stated to be in the vehicle at the time of its seizure by the bank, apart from a direction t o the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to take necessary action in terms of the FIR lodged on 24.06.2009. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appearing parties, this Court v ide order dated 18.08.2010 had rejected the first prayer made in the writ petiti on relating to the issuance of direction to the respondent bank, the same being a private bank. Moreover, for granting such relief as claimed, this Court would be required to record the evidence and scan the same, which cannot be done in ex ercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the second prayer, the notice of motion was issued. On the last occasion i.e. on 20.04.2011, Mrs. V.L. Sinha, learned State counsel, on the basis of the instruction received, has submitted that the invest igation in G.R. Case No.1198/2010, registered under Section 392 IPC, on the basi s of the FIR lodged by the petitioner, had not proceeded further as the petition er and his driver despite issuance of notice did not appear before the Investiga ting Officer for recording their statements. In the backdrop of such claim of th e learned State counsel, the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner had submitte d that the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer for recording statement. The case was thereafter fixed on 09.05.2011 i.e. today. Mrs. V.L. Sinha, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner has appeared before the I.O. and his statement has been recorded. It appears that the investigation in G.R. Case No.1198/2010 is in progre ss and the statements of number of persons have been recorded. That being the position, I am of the view that no further direction need s to be issued to the respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is expected that the Investigat ing Officer, in G.R. Case No.1198/2010, shall submit the report under Section 17 3 Cr.P.C. before the appropriate Court at the earliest. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.