JUDGMENT : Manish Pitale, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking following relief: “b) The Respondent No.3, may be directed to recredit the amount for sum of INR.65,00,000/- in the account of Shreeji jewelers bearing Account No.919020021152068, which has been illegally debited in the account of Diya Commodity vide transaction dated 7th January 2020” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 misused a cheque, allegedly forcibly taken from him and after filling amount of Rs.65,00,000/- in such a cheque, deposited the same in his account. The petitioner claims that respondent No.2 had abducted the petitioner and then forcibly taken a chequebook with signed cheques and one of them was misused in the above manner. It is stated that a complaint regarding the said incident was lodged on 5th July, 2019 at Ghatlodia Police Station in Ahmedabad, which was forwarded to Vile Parle Police Station and other authorities. 4. The petitioner further claims that upon the said complaint lodged by him, respondent No.1 had written a letter to respondent No.3-Bank to freeze the amount of Rs.65,00,000/- in the account of ‘M/s.Diya Commodity’ of which, respondent No.2 is the proprietor. The petitioner further states that Vile Parle Police Station informed him that it had no jurisdiction to inquire in the case as the bank of the petitioner is at Kalbadevi and that the petitioner should submit a report to L.T.Marg Police Station. Accordingly, the petitioner on 15th January, 2020, submitted the report to the L.T.Marg Police Station. 5. In this backdrop, the petitioner claims that since no amount was ever required to be transferred by the petitioner to the said proprietorship of respondent No.2, the aforesaid amount of Rs.65,00,000/- ought to be credited back to his account from the account of respondent No.2. It is only for this limited purpose that the present writ petition was filed. 6. On 21st December, 2020, this Court issued notice in the present writ petition wherein all the respondents were served. Respondent No.1-State is represented by Mr.Yagnik, the learned APP while learned counsel Ms.Mundra represents respondent No.3-Bank. Despite service, respondent No.2 chose not to appear before this Court. 7. 6. On 21st December, 2020, this Court issued notice in the present writ petition wherein all the respondents were served. Respondent No.1-State is represented by Mr.Yagnik, the learned APP while learned counsel Ms.Mundra represents respondent No.3-Bank. Despite service, respondent No.2 chose not to appear before this Court. 7. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3, it is specifically stated that the dispute is essentially between the petitioner and respondent No.2 in respect of the said amount. It is further stated that respondent No.3 could re-credit the aforesaid amount in the account of ‘Shreeji Jewellers’, which is the concern of the petitioner, subject to appropriate directions that may be issued by this Court. It is specifically stated that respondent No.3-Bank has no concern with the dispute between the said parties and it would abide by any order that may be passed by this Court. 8. As noted above, the present writ petition has been filed with limited prayer for a direction to respondent No.3-Bank to re-credit the aforesaid amount in the account of ‘Shreeji Jewellers’, which is the proprietorship concern of the petitioner. This Court is not going into the dispute raised by the petitioner against respondent No.2 or his claim of being abducted by respondent No.2, in respect of which an FIR is already registered. Respondent No.2 has chosen not to appear before this Court to oppose the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. Respondent No.3-Bank has categorically stated in its reply before this Court that it could re-credit the aforesaid amount in the account of ‘Shreeji Jewellers’ (proprietorship concern of the petitioner), if it is so directed by this Court, as respondent No.3-Bank has nothing to do with the dispute inter se between the petitioner and respondent No.2. 9. In view of the above, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition, subject to imposing appropriate condition. We are of the opinion that the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner can be granted in view of the fact that respondent No.2 has not appeared before this Court and respondent No.3-Bank has stated that it would abide by any directions from this Court. We are of the opinion that the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner can be granted in view of the fact that respondent No.2 has not appeared before this Court and respondent No.3-Bank has stated that it would abide by any directions from this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and it is directed that respondent No.3- Bank shall re-credit the amount of Rs.65,00,000/- in the account of ‘Shreeji Jewellers’ bearing account No.919020021152068, subject to the petitioner bringing back the amount, if so directed by the Court of competent jurisdiction before whom the proceeding pursuant to the FIR registered at the behest of the petitioner, is undertaken. 10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.