The SARFAESI Act provides a complete framework for addressing borrower grievances, and criminal proceedings against bank officers are unwarranted in the absence of evidence of entrustment and fraud.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR dated 03.02.2021 in connection with Ranchi Kotwali P.S. Case no.31 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 409 , 420 and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and entire criminal proceeding arising out of the same pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners are the officers of Punjab National Bank. The undisputed case of the informant/opposite party no.2 is that the informant/opposite party no.2 took loan from Punjab National Bank by creating an equitable mortgage as collateral security by depositing the title documents of the property with the bank. It is the case of the informant that after repayment of the loan, the title document of the property was to be returned back to the informant/opposite party no.2, but the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with each other did not hand over the title documents of her property and thereby they have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating by a banker; whereas it is the case of the petitioners that the husband of the informant/opposite party no.2 namely Mukhtiyar Singh Namdhari is the proprietor of M/s Shree Pratap Distributors and M/s Shree Pratap Distributors availed a cash credit facility and the informant/opposite party no.2 stood guarantor against the said cash credit facility and also executed a letter of continuity by extending the collateral security of her property to cover the cash credit facility given by the said Punjab National Bank to M/s Shree Pratap Distributors of which her husband was the proprietor. The undisputed facts remains that though the FIR was registered on 03.02.2021 after bank officials resorted to the proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) Act by publication of notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the notice under Section 13 (4) of the ‘SARFAESI’ Act was published on 08.12.2020 and the possession notice was published on 20.01.2021 and the said possession notice was published in the daily Hindi newspaper “Prabhat Khabar” on 21.01.2021. The informant/opposite party no.2 instead of approaching the competent authority under the ‘SARFAESI’ Act, unlike her husband Mukhtiyar Singh Namdhari who filed a ‘SARFAESI’ Application No.18 of 2021 in the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 (1) of the ‘SARFAESI’ Act and the brother-in-law of the informant namely Mr. Gulzar Singh Namdhari, the proprietor of M/s Namdhari Medical Agency, who filed SARFAESI Application No.19 of 2021; instead of filing any application under the SARFAESI Act, the informant/opposite party no.2 chose to lodge this FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit by drawing attention of this Court to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Virupaksha and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 440 , paragraph-15 and 17 of which reads as under:-

“15. The Sarfaesi Act is a complete code in itself which provides the procedure to be followed by the secured creditor and also the remedy to the aggrieved parties including the borrower. In such circumstance, as already taken note of by the High Court in writ proceedings, if there is any