Boutique Litigation Law Firm - Retain Lawyers - Research based Law Firm - Complete legal services

Borrower after dismissal of petition before DRT/DRAT cannot file criminal complaint against the bank; SC.

Supreme Court of India

Justice A S Bopanna, Justice R Banumathi & Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

The SC {K. Virupaksha & Anr. v. the State of Karnataka & Anr} holds that the action taken by the Banks under the SARFAESI Act is neither unquestionable nor treated as sacrosanct   under all circumstances but if there is discrepancy in the manner the Bank has proceeded it will always be open to assail it in the forum provided. It was held that in   the   instant   case   the   application   filed   by   the Complainant before the DRT has been dismissed and the Appeal No.523/2015 filed before the DRAT is also stated to be dismissed the complainant ought to have availed the remedy diligently. In that direction the further remedy by approaching the High Court to assail the order of DRT and DRAT is also available in appropriate cases. It was further held that instead the petitioner after dismissal of the application before the DRT filed the impugned complaint which appears to be an intimidatory tactic and an afterthought which is an abuse of the process of law.  It was held that in the matter of present nature if the grievance as put forth is taken note and if the same is allowed to be agitated through a complaint filed   at   this   point   in   time   and   if   the   investigation   is allowed to continue it would amount to permitting the jurisdictional police to redo the process which would be in the nature of reviewing the order passed by the learned Single   Judge   and   the   Division   Bench   in   the   writ proceedings by the High Court and the orders passed by the competent Court under the SARFAESI Act which is neither desirable nor permissible and the banking system cannot   be   allowed   to   be   held   to   ransom   by   such intimidation.   Therefore, it was held that the present case is a fit case wherein   the   extraordinary   power   is   necessary   to   be invoked and exercised. Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed by the SC.

In the present case, the appellants herein were the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.100323/2018 which was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench through the order dated 21.01.2019. The said order was passed by the High Court while considering the petition filed by the appellants   herein   under   Section   482   of   the   Cr.P.C. seeking that the order dated 20.05.2016 passed by the Principal   Civil   Judge   &   JMFC   in   PC   No.   389/2016 referring the matter for investigation and consequential registration   of   FIR in   Crime   No.   152/2016   by   the Hubballi   Sub­Urban   Police   Station   for   the   alleged offences punishable under Sections 511, 109, 34, 120­B, 406, 409, 420, 405, 417 and 426 of IPC be quashed. In the said proceedings the appellants herein are arrayed as Accused   Nos.   9   and   11   respectively. The allegations were that the Officers of the   Canara   Bank   in   connivance   with   the   auction purchaser had caused wrongful loss to the Complainant. The High Court did not quash the FIR. The said judgment of the HC was set aside by the SC, quashing the FIR – allowing the appeal.

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published