IMPORTANT POINTS
When the case arising out of a complaint petition reaches superior Court and an adverse order is passed, an opportunity of hearing has to be given.
While passing an order u/s 156(3) of CrPC, the Magistrate has to apply his mind.
When a matter is already pending under SARFAESI Act Magistrate should be moré careful and circumspect in passing order u/s 156(3) keeping in view the protection under section 32 of the Act.
To control abuse of section 156(3) CrPC, application u/s 156(3) must be supported by an affidavit giving details of availing provisions of section 154(1) and 154(3). Magistrate should also verify veracity of the affidavit filed with application u/s 156(3).

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J. — The present appeal projects and frescoes a scenario which is not only disturbing but also has the potentiality to create a stir compelling one to ponder in a perturbed state how some unscrupulous, unprincipled and deviant litigants can ingeniously and innovatively design in a nonchalant manner to knock at the doors of the Court, as if, it is a laboratory where multifarious experiments can take place and such skillful persons can adroitly abuse the process of the Court at their own will and desire by painting a canvas of agony by assiduous assertions made in the application though the real intention is to harass the statutory authorities, without any remote remorse, with the inventive design primarily to create a mental pressure on the said officials as individuals, for they would not like to be dragged to a court of law to face in criminal cases, and further pressurize in such a fashion so that financial institution which they represent would ultimately be constrained to accept the request for “one-time settlement” with the fond hope that the obstinate defaulters who had borrowed money from it would withdraw the cases instituted against them. The facts, as we proceed to adumbrate, would graphically reveal how such persons, pretentiously aggrieved but potentially dangerous, adopt the self-convincing mastery methods to achieve so. That is the sad and unfortunate factual score forming the fulcrum of the case at hand, and, we painfully recount.

2. The facts which need to be stated are that the respondent No.3, namely, Prakash Kumar Bajaj, son of Pradeep Kumar Bajaj, had availed a housing loan from the financial institution, namely, Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited (PNBHFL) on 21st January, 2001, vide housing loan account No.IHL-583. The loan was taken in the name of the respondent No.3 and his wife, namely, Jyotsana Bajaj. As there was default in consecutive payment of the installments, the loan account was treated as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Reserve Bank of India. The authorities of the financial institution issued notice to the borrowers under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act') and in pursuance of the proceedings undertaken in the said Act, the PNBHFL, on 5th June, 2007, submitted an application before the District Magistrate, Varanasi, U.P. for taking appropriate action under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

3. At this juncture, the respondent No.3 preferred W.P. No.44482 of 2007, which was dismissed by the High Court on 14th September, 2007, with the observation that it was open to the petitioner therein to file requisite objection and, thereafter, to take appropriate action as envisaged under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. After the dismissal of the writ petition with the aforesaid observation, the respondent No.3, possibly nurturing the idea of self-centric Solomon’s wisdom, filed a Criminal Complaint Case No.1058 of 2008, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against V.N. Sahay, Sandesh Tiwari and V.K. Khanna, the then Vice-President, Assistant President and the Managing Director respectively for offences punishable under Sections 163, 193 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was alleged in the application that the said accused persons had intentionally taken steps to cause injury to him. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 4th October, 2008, dismissed the criminal complaint and declined to take cognizance after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and examining the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

4. Being grieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent No.3 preferred a Revision Petition No.460 of 2008, which was eventually heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi, U.P. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after adumbrating the facts and taking note of the submi