Surinder Pal Singh Rana And ORS. v. Avtar Singh

 

  

  

 



 

!"#$$







        




# %& $ ' ( '   

 

  




 

     ( ' $) *+,- 

! !  
"#$% % !

&'

( ) '

*+  , $$+ * 

''  $++-$+ " &!  %  .



 &! &''




"$+"/0"/#"0  #$ ,  ,$ ,* ,/ ,,   
 $+1 2 % $       1'

 (' 

 4 ' 5

( %'' ! $++-6 ' (&!  

& 


(7'& $++06   

  
 *
         3 

     8 '  

!2$++$9:



  ;
38
2;9  

 '

&!   "+-$+ *& 




 7



( 
 " 
38
2 &!

   '



 ' !       '  !   ' !     4

   "+-$+ *  '

&! +*+/$+ *

&!

   "+/$+ *&! 7







< 
 " 
38
2

 & 1 "You are requested to take over the assets as mentioned in the application and hand over the same to the securty creditor. Authorized officer Punjab and Sind Bank, SCF Branch, (C$0689), Sector 17$B, Chandigarh.

If there is any stay or status quo from any competent court in the above matter then this order will not be implemented." *

!

 "+-$+ * &!   '
 " 
38
2  <

<  '! +*+/$+ * '

 *+  , $$+ *
"$+"/0"/#"0  #$ ,  ,$ ,* ,/ ,,   
 $+1 2 %  ' &    



    



  

&


(   ' & 

   "+-$+ * $ *  !



 !  %   .

 

 

 

  

        $++-$+ " '' 
"$+"/0"/# "0   $+1 2 % " 2' 

 '

 ''     &'

 !

 '

'

  '!

<+*+/$+ *  '

(   !  &! 



 7





&  ' 
 " 
38
2  &! =

   $$ $$+ "  1       %> 1 *+/#1$+ "         

 !

"  #$ % &"

'() '(#  ' 



 "+-$+ *  & 

&!

   ! '

   '

  ! '!  ' 
*- 
 ' 7!6    '

  1 ;Coming to the third question, Mr. Ratta has strongly relied upon an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoning the officials of the Bank for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120$B IPC. Though quashing petition against the said order is stated to be pending, but without prejudice to such proceedings, we have examined the argument raised by Mr. Ratta for the purposes of tenability of the claim of the Bank against the borrower. A perusal of the record of the Additional District Magistrate shows that an application, supported by a document titled as affidavit, for taking possession was filed by the Bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on 14.05.2013. However, it appears that such document was not on a stamp paper.

Therefore, to make up the deficiency of stamp duty on the said document, the adhesive stamps were supplied by the stamp vendor vide entry No.3067 on 03.06.2013. Mr. Ratta has vehemently argued that affixing of stamp on such a document is an act of forgery. The said argument is wholly misconceived. It is the deficiency in the stamp duty, which has been made good in terms of Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Therefore, mere fact that the document was not sufficient stamped, when originally filed, but stamped subsequently will not make an act of forgery. It has not been so found by the Additional District Magistrate as well. However, we find that the said document is not attested by a notary public or an Oath Commissioner. It is verified by the executants of the document i.e. Surinderpal Singh Rana, Assistant General Manager.

If the document is not attested, the same could have been rejected by the District Magistrate. But again that is not the ground taken by the Additional District Magistrate to reject the affidavit. Therefore, it is not an act of forgery, but a case of curable irregularity. Thus, we do not find that there is any fraud or forgery committed by the Bank, but it is an irregularity, which can be cured."

- ? 

&'

    

 

%>  *+/#1$+ " &'

inter se  =  &'  '

   !1$

' %>  *+/#1$+ "

     / 2        

 &(2 &  &''

&

 0 5   

    '    +/+#$+ "    

 +/+0$+ -  !      &

 !  $ +$+ -    '   2



  

'   '

 ":<9 ' 1 " That the contents of para 4 sub para xii of the petition are admitted being matter of record, however, it is pertinent to mention that the bank initial gave a document in the shape of an affidavit without the appropriate and required stamp paper. * +

'), +(#

-'# ' '.

(# #/ #0# '

"#  .. ' !)

0- --# (# -#'#

- !( # (#

0- --#

-# (#

#0# '.

)# "(

1'

%  "(

1'

 &'

233 % ( #

'() +('

(

(# !(0# &'

3
 (#

 !

' '0-)#5

'() '  
 ( '"( '# %0' 6- - !( #

 )#

0- --# ("

# , &'

4

-# #" # '.

(#

0- --# #'

# (#

0# , # "


  (# !' '.

(#

 !

"  #

'() Copy of the statement is already attached as Annexure R$3/T."

# 

'

 

''   '

!

 

  &  ''

!

 "+-$+ *&'&! 

 

 
 " 
38
2&  7 



&!

< '! $-  +*+/$+ * &'

&  7



   &!  &







&  7 &'

8
     

 !

"  #$ % &"

'() '(# $   $$ $$+ "      7         %  !    

!   '&  ! 

<  '&! +*+/$+ * 

  "+-$+ * ' ! ! '  ' !'

  ! '!' 
*-
 ' #,,6 =@& 7    !      & ' &  

!   

! ,    1'

  !     

!   ' $-   +*+/$+ * 

<



 )'     5 ' !  '! '

&!   &&! 

 7

   !  ! 

   '    

 "+-$+ *

 !  
"/* 2 %     '

   

   '   

!            "+-$+$* 

  &! 7

 ! "+/$+ *'

 '

  ! '  2'

!&  '

'''

 

  ! '      &     '

   ! '! + 2

 '       !  





&!

<  '  



' 

  '

 

&  

 "+-$+ * (  &!7







 "+/$+ *'



 !  '!  2 '

 & 

' 

 '





&'



       ! '  & 

  ' 

   '



  &'

      ' A 

 '



 !   !

 

0  +0  ' &! =@& 
'% 

# '.

 , 

(( , ( 9) $ %*

33
 

  

+0 ' 1 "107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

4

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non$cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. 7(# # ! 0) - '!##"

0.# ), ## +( 0) .# 1'

+(# # (# - '!##"

0)!' ),  # +(  )# '

0'# .'

+ #"

#"#!# ' (# !! # +( #+ '

-# (0 # '

- # -# ') " "#

$ 2 '

 & 

%) ! '

*+  , $$+ * 
 "$+"/0"/#"0  #$ ,  ,$ ,* ,/ ,,  
 $+1 2 % '   ''       $++-$+ " 

  

 )

   '  &!) )  +"+-$+$* )( ' - (

>   4  B4 >   &  B4