1. This is an application filed by the petitioner, who is the first respondent in Crl.M.P.No.132/2012 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad, to quash Annexure-1 order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. It is alleged in the petition that, the first respondent Bank moved the court below seeking assistance for taking possession of certain property said to be secured asset under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act). The court below earlier passed an order, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing Crl.M.C.No.4770/2013 and this Court allowed the application and directed the court below to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter Annexure- 1 order has been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which is being challenged before this Court.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission itself. The only allegation was that the procedure to be followed under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act has not been followed by the Bank before resorting to the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act.

4. There is no dispute regarding the fact that there was loan transaction between the petitioner and the respondent bank on furnishing security of the property belonging to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that default has been committed by the petitioner in payment and amounts are due to the bank from the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that the SARFAESI Act itself has been enacted for the purpose of enabling the financial institutions to get speedy remedy to recover the amounts due to them from the borrower by proceeding against secured interest without the intervention of the court.

5. Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act (prior to amendment) deals with Enforcement of Security Interest, which reads as follows:

13. Enforcement of security interest:-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 69 or Section 69- A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any instalment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4).

(3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of non-payment of secured debts by the borrower.

[(3-A) If, on receipt of the notice under subsection (2), the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate within one week of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower:

Provided that the reasons so communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 or the Court of District Judge under Section 17-A].

(4). In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in subsectio