Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/8018/2021allowed

Sathyanarayanan v. The Inspector Of Police

2022-01-11Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.01.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8018 & 10378 of 2021 and Cr.M.P.(MD)Nos.4133, 4134, 5317 & 5318 of 2021 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8018 of 2021:

1.Sathyanarayanan 2.Shiva ... Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 & 2 Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, 2.The Commissioner of Police, ... Respondents 1 & 2/ Respondents 3.S.Jegadish ... 3rd Respondent/ Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the private complaint in Cr.M.P.No.91 of 2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruchirapalli, under Sections 120(b), 406, 420, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.I.Muthaiah For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Probahar Additional Public Prosecutor for R.1 & R.2 Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan for R.3 1/4

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10378 of 2021:

1.Sudhagar Selvaraj 2.Muthukumar ... Petitioners/ Accused Nos.4 & 3 Vs.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Anand for Mr.K.C.Maniyarasu For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Probahar Additional Public Prosecutor for R.1 & R.2 Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan for R.3 COMMON ORDER In both these Criminal Original Petitions, the private complaint filed by the third respondent is sought to be quashed. The case as set out in the complaint, is that the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs,3,30,00,000/-(Rupees Three Crores and Thirty Lakhs only) from the Thillai Nagar Branch of Lakshimi Vilas Bank Limited and offered collateral security. He could repay only a sum of Rs.1,00,000,00/- (Rupees One Crore only) . He could not pay the balance amount of Rs.2,30,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores and Thirty Lakhs only). Therefore, the creditor Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The collateral security offered by the complainant was sold for a sum of Rs.1,89,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Eighty Nine Lakhs only) on 25.03.2019. The fourth accused 2/4

Thiru.Sudakar Selvaraj had purchased the property in the public auction held by the Creditor Bank. The specific allegation of the complainant is that there has been a collusion between the Bank officials on the one hand and the auction purchaser on the other. As a result, the property that should have fetched Rs.5 crores was sold for lesser amount. This was done by the Bank officials for illegal gratification. With these allegations, the third respondent has filed an impugned private complaint. In the private complaint, he has also impleaded the jurisdictional Police as respondents. Probably, the complainant expected that the jurisdictional Magistrate will issue direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Instead, congnizance of the complaint was taken and summons were issued to the fourth accused. A.1 and A.2 are the bank officials, while A.4 is the auction purchaser, A.3 is the brother-in-law of the auction purchaser.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the accused drew my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2020 SCC 400 (K.Virupaksha vs The State of Karnataka). In the said case also, the borrower aggreived by the sale of the secured interest under SARFAESI proceedings filed a criminal complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the validity of the SARFAESI proceedings will have to be tested only in the manner known to law. If the criminal complaint is allowed to be proceeded with the decision of the authorities under the Act as well as the High Court would be virtually reviewed by the Police or jurisdictional Criminal Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court felt that such a situation would be neither desirable nor permissable and that the banking system cannot be allowed to be held to ransom by such intimidation. It was further observed that a case of such a nature, the extraordinary power is necessarily to be invoked and exercised.

3. Respectfully applying the aforesaid ratio, I hold that the impugned proceedings constitute a clear abuse of legal process and it stands quashed. These Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) mga Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. 3/4

To 1.Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruchirapalli.

2.The Inspector of Police, 3.The Commissioner of Police, 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+5 CC to M/s.S.I.MUTHIAH, Advocate (SR-1794[F] dated 19/01/2022) +5 CC to M/s.K.C.Maniyarasu, Advocate (SR-1793[F] dated 19/01/2022) Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8018 & 10378 of 2021 and Cr.M.P.(MD)Nos.4133, 4134, 5317 & 5318 of 2021 11.01.2022 km(CO) TR(04.02.2022) 4P 15C 4/4