Simultaneous proceedings under the NI Act and SARFAESI Act are permissible, as they serve different legal objectives.

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

This order of mine shall dispose of both the petitions as detailed above, as they arise from similar facts and circumstances. However, for the sake of brevity, facts are taken from CRM-M No.63462 of 2023.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court by the filing present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act'), bearing No.NACT/455/2019 dated 26.07.2019, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom (Annexures P-1 and P-3 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kapurthala, titled as 'HDFC Bank v. Babalgeet Singh' under Section 138 of the NI Act).

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent-complainant is a bank with its registered office at HDFC House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, West Mumbai - 400013, and one of its branches at Kapurthala. The petitioner was granted C.C. Agriculture Limit of Rs.95,00,000/- under Loan Account No. 50200023232498 by the respondent bank. In consideration of sanctioning of aforesaid loan/limit, the petitioner executed various deeds and documents, as required for obtaining the loan, in favour of the respondent bank.

4. Since the petitioner failed to repay the abovementioned loan amount, the respondent bank filed a case bearing No.OA/3252/2019, titled 'HDFC Bank v. Babalgeet Singh' before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - 3, Chandigarh on 20.12.2019, in which summons were issued to the petitioner vide order dated 07.10.2021.

5. The respondent bank also instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act alleging that the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No.000006 dated 12.06.2019 for Rs.82,00,000/-in favour of the respondent bank, in order to discharge his legally enforceable liability. On presentation for encashment, the said cheque was dishonoured vide memo dated 13.06.2019 with remarks "Insufficient Funds". Thereafter, a legal notice dated 05.07.2019 was served upon the petitioner. However, since the petitioner failed to make the requisite payment in the stipulated time period, the instant complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala on 26.07.2019. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the criminal complaint on the ground that proceedings for recovery of the disputed amount are already pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - 3, Chandigarh.

CONTENTIONS

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the respondent/complainant-Bank has already filed an application for recovery of alleged debt before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (DRT3) in which summons have already been issued to the petitioner and therefore, the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act is not maintainable. In support of this contentions, he relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Gimpex Private Limited Vs. Manoj Goel (2022) 11 SCC 705; P. Mohanraj and others Vs. M/s Shah Brother Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 10355 decided on 01.03.2021 and Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation 2011 (7) RCR (Civil) 95. It was further contended that the alleged cheque was given by the petitioner at the time of availing the CC Agricultural Limit as security and therefore, at the time of issuance of cheque, there was no legal liability against the petitioner. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered by the High Court of Madras in A.R. Chellappan Vs. A.R.E. Thirugnanam Law Finder Id: 900481 and the Delhi High Court in IKF Technologies and others Vs. Sasi Bhushan Raju Law Finder Id: 450963.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that there is no embargo in initiating simultaneous proceedings for recovery of debt under the Securitization and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Secur