The main legal point established in the judgment is that the protection provided under Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings when the actions are taken in good faith.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 CrPC, with a prayer for quashing the FIR of Lohsinghna P.S. case no. 13 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 418, 420 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the same, pending in the court of learned ACJM, Hazaribagh.

3. The facts of the case is that the complainant –opposite party no. 2 instituted a complaint alleging therein that the petitioner no. 1, who being the Branch Manager at Punjab National Bank, Hazaribagh branch and the petitioner no. 2-being the Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank, Bokaro Regional office and the authorized officer under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as SARFAESI Act, 2002), was involved in conducting E-auction regarding sale of mortgaged land covered under Title deed. The complainant participated in the said E-auction on 13.09.18 after paying earnest money of bid amount of Rs. 35,000/-to Punjab National Bank, Hazaribagh. The bid of the complainant of Rs. 4,50,000/-for purchase of the property was accepted by the Punjab National Bank. Subsequently, the complainant deposited all the amount of bid amount to Punjab National Bank, Hazaribagh branch within 15 days and the sale certificate was to be issued in the name of the complainant but when the complainant visited the Punjab National Bank, Hazaribagh branch, the petitioner no. 1 in criminal conspiracy with the petitioner no. 2, evasively told the complainant to manage the bank otherwise they will cancel the bid, taking plea of technical error of e-auction. The complainant submitted an application to the petitioner no. 1 to issue sale certificate, execute registered deed of sale but the petitioner no. 1 did not give him any acknowledgment of receipt of the said letter and ultimately, told the complainant that as some other bidder who is ready, but, he could not participate in the bid due to technical error, so they will cancel the auction sale dated 13.09.2018. The complainant gave legal notices to the petitioners, but the same was in vain.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have acted bonafide and in good faith in their capacity of Branch Manager and authorized officer respectively of Punjab National Bank, on the date of alleged occurrence while exercising the rights of the bank as secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and they are protected under section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which reads as under :

“Section 32. Protection of action taken in good faith.

No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against [the Reserve Bank or the Central Registry or any secured creditor or any of its officers for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith under this Act.” (Emphasis supplied)

5. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there were two bidders, one was the complainant and the other was Amar Kumar Yadav. During the auction time, Amar Kumar Yadav called the Nodal Officer of Bank intimating him that though he was trying to place his amount higher than the bid of the complainant-informant but the system was not allowing him for the same and ultimately he tried to submit the bid of amount of Rs. 5,50,000/-but it was not accepted and the system showing as invalid bid price. Later on, after examining the matter it was found that the complaint of the complainant – Amar Kumar Yadav was correct. Therefore, the informant was informed that after issuance of letter of acceptance of bid as it came to notice of the bank that due to the technical error in auction portal, access of other bidder in placing the bid got restricted and accordingly, it was decided not to confirm the sale of property. The bank expressed its regret and informed and requested the complainant – inf