The expediency of initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Code is to be determined by the Court before which the issue is raised, and the petitioner may seek an extension of time for filing objections.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - By means of instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following relief:-

'(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/ directing the Ld. Debts Recover Tribunal of Uttarakhand at Dehradun to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on the application of the petitioner filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. (Annexure No.4 to this writ petition) within the stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court.'

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no. 1 appeared through video conferencing.

3. It appears that the respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of money against the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun ('the DRT'). The petitioner had already filed a Caveat, which was in order. The petitioner also filed a preliminary objections with a request to dismiss the Original Application ('the OA'), filed by the respondent-Bank. By the order dated 05.01.2023, the DRT observed that the objections are not properly stamped. The DRT fixed 08.02.2023 for further proceedings, while giving opportunity to the petitioner and others to file objections. The order dated 05.01.2023 is as follows:-

'Called out, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Caveator present.

The Caveator has not filed caveat petition in proper form.

The Defendant No. 1 has filed preliminary objection vide Diary no. 66 dated 05.01.2023 and prayer has been made to dismiss the above captioned O.A. No. 607 of 2022 and for any other relief may deem fit but no any court fees has been paid for relief. Every person is liable to pay court fee, if he has come before the Tribunal or Court for any relief or prayer. The Defendant- Applicant is directed to pay proper fee, if he wants to press objection as per prayer.

Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 1 has stated that he shall file vakalatnama within a week on behalf of Defendant No. 2 & 3 also.

As per Ld. Counsel for the Defendant No. 1, no need to send summons to the Defendants No. 2 & 3.

The Defendants shall file written statement within in a period of 15 days, after receiving written statement Applicant Bank may file replication, if any, within a period of 15 days.

The Defendants are restrained from transferring, alienating, selling or otherwise dealing with or disposing of any personal movable and immovable properties belonging to them in any manner whatsoever till furnishing security/disposal of this case without the prior permission of this Tribunal.

Put up on 08.02.2023 for further proceedings.'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code') because along with OA, some documents were filed, which were not pertaining to the petitioner.

5. It is argued that instead of deciding that application under Section 340 of the Code, it was observed that it was not sufficient stamped and the court proceeded further while granting interim relief.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would file objections within three days from today and participates in the proceedings before the DRT.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1-Bank would submit that the petitioner has not come up with clean hands. He has concealed many things because he filed earlier a writ petition, in which the order was passed to decide the representation that may be submitted by the petitioner. The representation was so decided. The petitioner thereafter, again filed another writ petition, which was dismissed and a Special Appeal against it, filed by the petitioner has also stood dismissed.

8. It is argued that all these facts have not been mentioned by the petitioner in the instant petition. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-Bank would also submit that, in fact, the petitioner wants to influence the DRT proceedi