Back
2023 Supreme(Pat) 1373
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANDEEP KUMAR, J.
Shipra Roy D/o Shri Brajdeo Prasad Ray – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4855 of 2022
Decided On : 12-12-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Amaresh Kumar Sinha.
For the Respondent: Anita Kumari, Uma Shankar.
For the Bank : Mritunjay Kumar.
IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that FIRs filed with malicious intent, particularly by borrowers who have lost property through lawful auction processes, can be quashed to prevent abuse of the judicial system.
Headnote:
QUASHING - FIRST INFORMATION REPORT - Sections 406, 420 of IPC; SARFAESI Act, 2002 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertain to criminal breach of trust and cheating, respectively. It also referenced the SARFAESI Act, 2002, emphasizing that it provides a complete code for the recovery of debts by banks and financial institutions. The court interpreted these provisions to conclude that the FIR was filed maliciously by the informant, who was a defaulter and had already sought remedies under the SARFAESI Act, thus influencing the decision to quash the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The informant, Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, took a loan from Punjab National Bank and defaulted, leading to the auction of his property. He alleged that the auction purchaser, the petitioner, along with bank officials, conspired to dispossess him and his tenants, prompting him to file an FIR under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was a bona fide auction purchaser and that the FIR was filed out of malice by the informant, who was attempting to retaliate against the bank and the petitioner after losing his property in a legitimate auction.
Issues: Whether the FIR filed by the informant constituted a valid complaint under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, and whether the proceedings should be quashed due to the malicious intent behind the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents that allow for quashing FIRs when they are found to be malicious or when the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence. It emphasized that the judicial process should not be used for personal vengeance and that the SARFAESI Act provides adequate remedies for aggrieved borrowers.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings, determining that the FIR was maliciously filed against the petitioner, who had legally acquired the property through auction.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP KUMAR, J.
1. This application has been filed for quashing the First Information Report bearing Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No. 466 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. As per the prosecution case, the informant namely, Arvind Kumar Chaudhary has taken a loan of Rs.40,00,000/-from the Punjab National Bank, Branch-New Market, Patna but, the Bank without proper communication and without following due process, made an auction of the house of the informant. It has also been alleged that the informant made an application before the D.R.T., Patna but despite their being several order, the Bank has not submitted the documents. It has also been alleged that the bank has claimed the possession of the property in question but the real fact is that the mother of the informant and other tenants are living for last 10-15 years in the large area of the property. It has also been alleged that the auction purchaser i.e. petitioner through staff and unknown persons used to threaten the mother and other tenants of the informant on phone. On enquiry from the tenants, he was informed that Sanjay Yadav and Kunal, employees of the petitioner, used to come and force them to open the door at night and the petitioner has instructed them to disturb the tenants so that they are forced to leave the place. It has also been alleged that there was a rent agreement between the informant and Dr. Ajit Singh for a large part of the property, in question but, said Dr. Ajit Singh and present petitioner in connivance with the bank officials are trying to grab the house of the informant. The informant suspected the hand of the bank Manager P.K. Singh in this regard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 2 has taken a loan from the Punjab National Bank and he has defaulted in repayment of the loan and accordingly, the proceeding under the SARFAESI Act was initiated against the informant. Thereafter, the Bank put the property of the informant on auction and in this regard, the Bank has also published an advertisement dated 09.03.2018 for the auction of the said property and when the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid auction sale, she took part in the said auction and became the successful bidder in public auction. He further submits that as per the instructions of the Bank, the petitioner deposited the full amount of auction with the Bank and after following the necessary procedure, the Bank issued Sale Certificate in favour of the petitioner and handed over the possession of a part of the property to her and since then the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the said property.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the mother of the informant was residing in other portion of the said property and on the request of the Bank and the informant, the parties agreed to allow the mother of the informant to stay for some time. He also submits that informant has preferred an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna against the actions and measures taken by the Bank with respect to the said property. In the said proceeding, the petitioner was also made a party and the informant has filed an application for interim stay but the Tribunal vide order dated 23.07.2018 dismissed the said application. After being unsuccessful in getting stay on the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the informant along with his accomplices forcefully tried to dispossess the petitioner from the said property which has been purchased by her in a public auction.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a bonafide auction purchaser and has nothing to do with the transactions between the informant and the Bank. In view of the advertisement, the petitioner took part in the public auction and in the said auction she was declared successful. He further submits that the informant has
