of Section 405 IPC would be attracted. 9. It is submitted that access of the bank locker given to Ms. Sunita Khemka in violation of Section 132(2) of the IT Act would attract the offence under Section 409 read with Section 405 of the IPC. 10. It is submitted that the High Court has rightly, relying on various judgments of this Court including Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others10, held that the High Court cannot thwart any investigation into a cognizable offence, which is the statutory 9 (2009) 11 SCC 737 10 (2021) 19 SCC 401 10right and duty of the Police under the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. 11. He further submits that it is equally settled that the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. 12. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have scrutinized the record. It will be relevant to refer to the Prohibitory Order issued by