IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N. R. BORKAR, NITIN JAMDAR, JJ.
ICICI Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2778, 3018 of 2021
Decided on : 01-08-2022
CRIMINAL - QUASHING OF FIR - SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - FIR FILED WITH MALAFIDES, SEEKING TO CONVERT A PURELY COMMERCIAL DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF DEFAULTS IN REPAYMENT OF LOAN INTO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TO HARASS AND PRESSURIZE THE BANK AND IT’S OFFICERS AND ARC - FIR IS FILED MAKING GRIEVANCE OF WHAT TRANSPIRED BETWEEN 2011 - 2012 ONLY AFTER A SUMMONS IS ISSUED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ON THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ARC - COURT LOOKED INTO THE FIR CAREFULLY AND HELD THAT IF SUCH PRACTICES ARE PERMITTED, IT WOULD HAVE SEVERE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE BANKING BUSINESS AND RECOVERY OF BAD LOANS.
Fact of the Case:
The Complainant had approached the Bank for a loan. The loan agreement was executed between the Bank and the Complainant in the year 2011. The Complainant's account was classified as Non-performing Asset (NPA) on 30 June 2016. The loan recall notice was issued to the Complainant on 8 July 2016. On 30 September 2016, the Complainant's facility was assigned to the ARC. On 7 December 2017, the ARC filed proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) against the Complainant. On 14 June 2021, the DRT issued summons to the Borrower and the Complainant and injuncted them from alienating and/or dealing with the properties. On 9 July 2021, the FIR was filed by the Complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The FIR reads more like a written statement filed in the DRT. Therefore, it was put to the learned Counsel for the Complainant to indicate the heads of criminality in these transactions. The perusal of the FIR shows that it is nothing but a narration of documentary transactions between the Bank and the Complainant.
Issues: Whether the FIR is filed with malafides, seeking to convert a purely commercial dispute arising out of defaults in repayment of loan into criminal proceedings to harass and pressurize the Bank and it’s officers and ARC.
Ratio Decidendi: In the present case no cognisable offence is made out. With the manner in which the FIR has been lodged, the repeated summons issued by the Investigating Officer and the insistence on handing over the original documents, we are convinced that this FIR is an abuse of the process of law. It is filed in respect of the events that occurred a decade ago only with an intention to block the recovery of the loan in a brazen attempt to do so. If this criminal process is permitted to go on, with all the senior officers of the Bank and the ARC being subjected to it, it would be a gross failure of justice.
Final Decision: Writ Petition No. 2778 of 2021 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Writ Petition No. 3018 of 2021 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c). Rule is made absolute in both the Petitions in the above terms.
JUDGMENT :
Nitin Jamdar, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The Respondents waive service. The Petitions have been argued together and are disposed of by the common judgment.
2. The Petitions are filed to quash the FIR EOW C.R.No. 71 of 2021 arising out of C.R. No. 246 of 2021 filed by Respondent No.2 and the summons issued by the EOW.
3. In Writ Petition No. 2778 of 2021, Petitioner No.1 - ICICI Bank Limited is a Public Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and Banking Company within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Petitioner No.2 – Ms. Zarin Daruwala worked with Petitioner No.1 as President. Petitioner No.3 – Girish Nayak was working with Petitioner No.1 as General Manager and Head of Corporate Banking Group. Petitioner No.4 – Arati Ramakrishnan was employed with Petitioner No.1 as Deputy General Manager. Petitioner No.5 – Vipul Parmar was working Petitioner No.1 as an Assistant Relationship Manager from June 2010 onwards. Petitioner No.6 – Kunjal Jadhav worked with Petitioner No.1 as Relationship Manager. Petitioner No.7 – Neha Badlani joined Petitioner No.1 in Strategic Solutions Group as a Relationship Manager.
4. In Writ Petition No. 3018 of 2021, the Petitioner – JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and registered as an Asset Reconstruction Company with the Reserve Bank of India under Section 3 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 on 19 September 2007. From 30 September 2016, the Petitioner has become a subsidiary of JM Financial Limited and a public limited company.
5. In both petitions, Respondent No.1 – is State, the Economic Offences Wing.
6. Respondent No.2 – the Complainant is a director of Hotel Horizon Private Limited, engaged in the business of hoteliers and hospitality services. The Respondent no.2 has filed the impugned FIR bearing CR No.71 of 2021 registered with EOW (renumbered from FIR bearing CR No.246 of 2021 registered with BKC Police Station, Mumbai) for offences under Section 420, 409, 465, 468, 471 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 9 July 2021.
7. In this judgment, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2778 of 2021, Petitioner No.1 - ICICI Bank Limited is referred to as the "Bank". Petitioners No.2 to 7 are referred to as the "officers of the Bank". In Writ Petition No. 3018 of 2021, the Petitioner JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited is referred to as "ARC". Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra through Economic Offence Wing, referred to as "EOW". Respondent No.2 – the Complainant is a director of Hotel Horizon Private Limited is referred to as the “Complainant”.
8. We have heard Mr. Ashok Mundargi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Aabad Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2778 of 2021 ( the Bank), Mr. Ravi Kadam, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3018 of 2021 (the ARC), Mr. Ganesh Gole, learned Advocate for the Respondent Complainant (the Complainant) and Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent No.1 – EOW in both the Petitions.
9. Before we detail the facts of the case, certain basic positions need to be referred. The Complainant had approached the Bank for a loan. The loan agreement was executed between the Bank and the Complainant in the year 2011. The Complainant's account was classified as Non-performing Asset (NPA) on 30 June 2016. The loan recall notice was issued to the Complainant on 8 July 2016. On 30 September 2016, the Complainant's facility was assigned to the ARC. On 7 December 2017, the ARC filed proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) against the Complainant. On 14 June 2021, the DRT issued summons to the Borrower and the Complainant and injuncted them from alienating and/or dealing with the properties. On 9 July 2021, the FIR was filed by the Complainant. The EOW issued summons to the ARC to pr
State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp1 SCC 335
M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 2021 SC 1918
All Cargo Movers (India) Private Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain
Salimbhai Hamidbhai Memon Vs. Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel & Anr. AIR 2021 SC 4404
Kishan Singh through the Legal Representative Vs. Gurpal Singh & Ors. 2008 SCC 775
AI
Criminal proceedings against bank officials for lawful actions under the SARFAESI Act constitute an abuse of process and are not maintainable.
The court quashed proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, ruling that allegations of forgery lacked merit and constituted an abuse of process due to pending appeal in Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
The SARFAESI Act provides a complete legal framework for secured creditors, ensuring that their actions are protected when conducted in good faith, and establishes that criminal proceedings cannot be....
The complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, and vicarious liability cannot be imposed without proper allegations and evidence.
Criminal conspiracy in terms of Section 120-B of the Code is an independent offence. It is punishable separately.
FIRs quashed against financial institution officials as malafide counterblast to recovery proceedings lacking offence ingredients, despite nascent stage, to prevent abuse of process per Bhajan Lal pr....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.