Point of Law : Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, which reads as Protection of action taken in good faith.—No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any secured creditor or any of his officers or manager exercising any of the rights of the secured creditor or borrower for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith under this Act.

ORDER :

The petitioners in the batch of these petitions call in question the proceedings in Crime No.21/2019 registered for offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 408, 420, 463, 464, 471, 120B and 34 of the IPC. The crime is registered pursuant to registration of a private complaint by the complainant against the petitioners. The complainant is common in these petitions. Therefore, they are taken up together and considered by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in Crl.P.No.1627/2022 are considered.

The 2nd respondent a civil electrical contractor at Shivamogga is sanctioned and approved a contract on 24.08.2007 to lift water from Tungabhadra river under Lift Irrigation Scheme near Holaluru village, Shivamooga district to provide water to four lakes, Narayana lake, Singalli lake, Boodikere lake and Suttukere lake. After completion of the main work by RNR Engineers (P) Ltd., without following due process of law, the tender is said to have been allotted to one K.B.Kumar to complete the remainder of the work under the same project. Without completing the balance work under the aforesaid tender, it is the allegation of the complainant that K.B.Kumar who was awarded work without calling for tender, raised bills for installation of new pump, motor rewinding, panel board capacitor, starter and transformer and created false documents contending that he had performed the work between 07.4.2017 to 16.5.2017. The total bill amount claimed was Rs.70 lakhs, which according to the complainant was a fabricated bill by taking support from false documents. The sum and substance of the complaint registered by the respondent No.2/complainant in all these cases is what is aforesaid.

3. On the aforesaid facts, the complainant registers a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against all the petitioners/accused in these cases. The learned Magistrate on 04.1.2019 endorses that cognizance is taken, office is directed to register the present complaint as PCR and put up later, after which, the Magistrate refers the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the jurisdictional police. The police register an FIR against these petitioners in Crime No.21/2019 pursuant to the reference made by the Magistrate as aforesaid. On registration of the said crime, the petitioners in these petitions have knocked the doors of this Court in these petitions.

4. Heard Sri.K.Govindaraju, learned counsel for petitioners, Smt.K.P.Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Harish Kumar. M.S., learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.K.Govindaraj would contend that the complainant has made vague assertions in the complaint and the complaint is not supported by an affidavit as is required in law. The complainant also does not narrate in the complaint as to the efforts made by him to register a complaint before the police prior to registration of the private complaint before the learned Magistrate.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the complainant would contend that it is not mandatory to file an affidavit, as the statement of verification, verifying the contents of the complaint is made in the complaint itself, though the complaint neither contains a verifying affidavit or an affidavit. He would submit that it is a matter of trial as the petitioners are all prima facie guilty of the afore-quoted offences, the matter is still in the stage of investigation, the police are yet to file their final report/charge sheet in the matter. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. In furtherance of the aforesaid submissions and perusal of the material on record, the only issue that falls for my consideration is,

“Whether the complaint was maintainable without it being accompanied by