1/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION

MilindKashinathMahadik
Versus
TheStateofMaharashtra&ors

C
ou

CRIMINALWRITPETITIONNO.4484of2013

rt

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY

..Petitioner

..Respondents

ig
h

Mrs.Aarti Mahadik and Mr.Milind Mahadik, Petitioner in person

present.
Mr.R. Sathyanarayanan i/b M/s.H & M Legal Associates for
respondentno.3

Mr.DeepakThakre,APPfortheRespondentNo.1State.
CORAM: ABHAYM.THIPSAY,J.

ba
y

ORALORDER:

om

DATED: 11thDECEMBER2014.

Rule.Byconsent,Rulemadereturnableforthwith.

Byconsent,heardfinallyforthwith.

The petitioner had filed a complaint against the

respondentnos.2,3and4herein,allegingcommissionofvarious
offences,includingtheoffencespunishableundersection406IPC,
409IPC,420IPC,448IPC,504IPCreadwithsection34ofthe
IPC,intheCourtofJudicialMagistrateFirstClassatPune. The
learned Magistrate after examining the petitioner on oath,

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

2/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

postponedtheissueofprocess,andorderedinvestigationintothe

rt

matterbythepolice,ascontemplatedundersection202ofthe

C
ou

CodeofCriminalProcedure(forshort'theCode').Afterreceiptof
the report of investigation, the learned Magistrate came to the
conclusionthattherewerenotsufficientgroundsforproceeding,
andtherefore,byanorderdated3 rdOctober2011,dismissedthe

ig
h

complaint,ascontemplatedundersection203oftheCode.

Thepetitionerchallengedtheorderofdismissalofthe

complaint by filing an application for revision in the Court of

Sessions. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who heard the

ba
y

revisionapplication,foundnothingwrongintheorderpassedby
theMagistrate,andtherefore,rejectedtherevisionapplication.It
isunderthesecircumstances,thattheapplicanthas,bythepresent

om

petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

approachedthisCourt,andisalsoinvokingtheinherentpowersof

the Court, praying that the order passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge in revision, be quashed and set aside, and that
process be ordered to be issued with respect to the offences
mentionedinthecomplaint'againsttherespondentBank'.

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

3/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

InthisCourt,thepetitionerdesiredtoberepresented

rt

by his wife Smt.Aarti Mahadik and as such, the wife of the

C
ou

petitionerSmt.AartiMahadikwaspermittedtoaddresstheCourt
bymakingsubmissionsinsupportofthepetition.

Ihaveheardthepetitioner'swifeforandonbehalfof

ig
h

the petitioner. I have heard Mr. R.Sathyanarayanan, learned

counselfortherespondentnos.2and3.IhaveheardMr.Deepak

Thakre,learnedAPPfortheState.

Thecaseofthepetitioner(hereinafterreferredtoas

ba
y

'thecomplainant'forthesakeofclarityandconvenience),asper

om

thecomplaint,wasasfollows:

That,inthemonthofOctober2003,orthereabout,

thecomplainantandhiswifeapproachedtherespondentno.3

HousingDevelopmentFinanceCorporationLtd(HDFCLtd)witha
requesttograntatermloanfortheirhousingrequirements. A
termloanofRs.8,50,000/wasdisbursedtothecomplainantand
hiswife,onexecutingnecessarysecuritydocumentsinfavourof
theHDFCLtd.Theflatforthepurchaseofwhichtheloanwasgot
sanctionedi.e.flatno.24,6 thfloorRussetCHSL,BuildingNo.D3,

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

4/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

Hermes Heritage, Phase II, Off Nagar Road, Yerawada, Taluka

rt

Haveli,District Pune(hereinafterreferredtoas'theflat'or'the

C
ou

saidflat')wasmortgaged,creatingsecurityinterestinfavourof
therespondentno.3HDFCLtd. That,initiallythecomplainant
paidtheequatedmonthlyinstalmentsasagreedupon,butlater,
due to several personal difficulties, such as heavy loss in the

ig
h

business,lossofhiswife'sjobduetoillhealthetc.couldnotpay
thesame.Thecomplainant'swife,therefore,wrotealettertothe
respondentno.3requestingthemtorevisetherepaymentschedule

under a new scheme declared by the respondent no.3 as 'Easy

EMI'.Therespondentno.3,however,didnotrespondtothesaid

ba
y

communication.On9thJuly2005,thecomplainantagainwrotea
letter to the respondent no.3, but that also was not replied.
Accordingtothecomplainant,heisnotawilfuldefaulter,andthat

om

he has been repaying the loan amount as and when it was

possible, and that even today, he and his wife are willing to

regularizetheloanaccount.

That,on1st October2008,thecomplainantfounda

noticedated18thJune2008,issuedbytherespondentno.3,pasted
onthedoorofthesaidflat. Thecomplainantwasshockedand
surprisedasheand/orhiswifehadnotreceivedanyletter/notice

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

5/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

demandingtheoverdueamountstowardstherepaymentofloan.

rt

That,thecomplainantwasneverservedwiththesaidnoticedated

C
ou

18thJune2008,andthattheylearntaboutsuchanoticeonlyon
1stOctober2008whenithadbeenfoundpastedonthedoorofthe
said flat. It appears that the said notice purported to be one
under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of

ig
h

FinancialAssetsandEnforcementof SecurityInterestAct,2002
(forshort'SARFEASIAct').That,ongettingknowledgeofthesaid
notice,thecomplainantaddressedanoticedated7thOctober2008

totherespondentno.3throughthecomplainant'sadvocate,and
demandedastatementofaccounts.However,noreplytothesaid

ba
y

noticewasgivenbytherespondentno.3. Therespondentno.3
instead issued a further notice dated 15 th November 2008,
purportedlyundersection13(4)oftheSARFEASIAct. That,the

om

said notice was also not served upon the complainant, but the
complainantandhiswifecametoknowaboutthesameonlyafter

ithadbeenpastedonthedoorofthesaidflaton17 thNovember
2008.Thecomplainantandhiswifethenwenttotheofficeofthe
respondentno.3,buttheofficialsoftherespondentno.3didnot
entertainthem,andthreatenedthattheywouldtakepossessionof
thesaidflat.Accordingtothecomplainant,threateninglanguage
suggesting that the officials of the respondent no.3 and the

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

6/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

recoveryagentsaredangerouspersons,andthattheyknew'how

rt

totwistthelaw,andhowtousethelawfulmeansinunlawfulway'

C
ou

wasusedbyonePrithvirajRaneapreviousauthorizedofficerof
the respondent no.3. That, the highhanded action of the
respondentno.2wasobjectedtobythecomplainantandhiswife
by writing a letter dated 18th November 2008, contending that

ig
h

therewasnotproperserviceofthenoticeundersection13(2)of
theSARFEASIAct,buttherespondentno.3didnotpayanyheed
tothesaidletterandmaintainedthatthenoticehadbeenproperly

served through Registered Post A.D, and also by publication in

newspapers. That, the complainant approached the Yerawada

ba
y

PoliceStationon19thNovember2008,andtriedtolodgeareport,
but the police replied to the complainant that they would
definitely take action next time whenever any incident would

om

happeninfuture. That,onthesameday,thesaidMr.Prithviraj
Rane, the previous authorized Officer of the respondent no.3,

visitedthesaidflatalongwith15to20unknownpersonswho
werearmedwithbigwoodensticks,andwhoweresupposedtobe
the recovery agents of the respondent no.3; and threatened to
causeharmtotheextentofcausingdeathorgrievoushurttothe
complainantandhiswife,incasetheydidnotgivethepossession
ofthesaidflat.Alternatively,thecomplainantandhiswifewere

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

7/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

alsotoldthatthosepersonswouldbreakthedoor,anddrivethem

rt

(the complainantand his wife)out forcibly. That, there wasa

C
ou

chaos and noise in the building (due to the incident) and

thereafter,thesaidrecoveryagentswentaway.On29 thDecember
2008,someothercorrespondencetookplacebetweentheparties,
thedetailsofwhicharenotverymaterialforthepresent.Whatis

ig
h

materialisthaton24th December2010,thecomplainantandhis
wifevisitedthesaidflatandfoundthatthelockthathadbeenput
bythemonthesaidflathadbeenbroken. Therespondentno.2

hadpastedanoticeofpossessiondated3 rdSeptember2010onthe
doorofthesaidflat,andhadputthesealoftherespondentno.3

ba
y

ontheflat.Thecomplainantandhiswifemadeinquirieswiththe
concerned police station as well as in the office of the District
Magistratewhentheylearntthattherespondentno.2hadforcibly

om

takenpossessionofthesaidflatwithoutinterventionofanyCourt
or the District Magistrate. That, the accused persons had

therefore,takenillegalpossessionofthesaidflat.That,household
goods,articles,ornamentsetc.belongingtothecomplainantand
hiswifetotallyvaluedataboutRs.22,07,000/arelyinginthesaid
flat.

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

8/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

Makingtheseavermentsandcontendingthatoffences

rt

punishableundersections356IPC,403IPC,405IPC,406IPC,

C
ou

409IPC,415IPC,417IPC,420IPC,424IPC,442IPC,445IPC,
448IPC,504IPCr/wsection34oftheIPC,hadbeencommitted
bytherespondentnos.2,3and4,thecomplainanthadprayedthat
investigationascontemplatedundersection156(3)oftheCodebe

ig
h

orderedinthematter.

Asaforesaid,insteadorderinginvestigationasprayed

for,thelearnedMagistrateexaminedthecomplainantonoathas
contemplated under section 200of the Code thereafter ordered

ba
y

investigationintothematterbythepoliceundertheprovisionsof
section 202 of the Code, and as aforesaid, after receipt of the
reportofinvestigation,dismissedthecomplaintbyanorderdated

om

23rdOctober2011.Asaforesaid,theRevisionApplicationagainst

thesaidordercametobedismissed.

10

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the

actionoftherespondentno.3anditsofficersispatentlyillegal.It
is submitted that the respondent no.3 was not entitled to take
possessionofthesaidflatinthismanner,andthatthetakingof
possessionofthesaidflatcannotbejustifiedbyreferringtothe

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

9/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

provisionsintheSARFEASIAct,inasmuchastheprovisionsofthe

rt

saidActwerenotfollowed. Itissubmitted, interalia,thatthe

C
ou

notice under section 13(2) of the SARFEASI Act was not at all
servedonthecomplainant,andthatitwasdeliberatelysentatthe
address of the said flat though, at the material time, the
complainantandhiswifewerenotresidingthere,totheknowledge

ig
h

oftheconcernedofficersoftherespondentno.3.Itisalsosubmitted
that this is evident from the fact that certain other
communicationstothecomplainantandhiswifeweresentbythe

respondentno.3onadifferentaddress. Itisalsosubmittedthat
therespondentno.3wasnotentitledtotakepossessionofthesaid

ba
y

flatwithoutobtaininganyorderfromtheDistrictMagistrate,as
contemplatedinsection14oftheSARFEASIAct.

om

11

According to Mr.Sathyanarayan, the learned counsel

for the respondent nos.2 and 3, the complaint filed by the

complainanthasbeenproperlydismissedastheserespondentshad
notcommittedanyoffence.Itissubmittedthatthepossessionof
thesaidflathasbeentakenbytherespondentno.3inaccordance
withtheprovisionsofSARFEASIAct,andthattheactoftaking
possessioninaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthesaidActcannot
amounttoanyoffence. Itissubmittedthatthecomplainantisa

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

10/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

wilful defaulter, and had lodged a false complaint against the

rt

respondentnos.2and3.Itissubmittedthattherespondentno.3

C
ou

wasentitledtotakepossessionoftheflat,whichwasasecured
interest/asset, without obtaining any order from the District
Magistrate as contemplated under section 14 of the Act. It is
submittedthattherespondentno.3hadanoptioninthatregard,

ig
h

andthatthoughsection14oftheSARFEASIActmakesaprovision
forapproachingtheDistrictMagistrateforthepurposeoftaking
possessionofasecuredasset,itisnotthatthepossessionofthe

securedassetcannotbetakenbythesecuredcreditorwithoutan

ba
y

order,orassistance,fromtheDistrictMagistrate.

12

I have carefully considered the matter. I have been

taken through the relevant provisions in the SARFEASI Act,and

om

the Security Interest (Enforcement Rules 2002)(for short 'the

Rules').

13

IntheviewthatIamtaking,itisnotnecessarytogo

deeperintothematterfordecidingthelikelihoodorunlikelihood
oftherespectivepleasonthedisputedfacts,beingtrueorfalse.It
isbecausetherealquestioniswhetheronthefactsallegedinthe
complaint,andthematerialthatwasbeforetheMagistrate,acase

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

11/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

fororderinginvestigationintothematterascontemplatedunder

rt

section156(3)oftheCode,hadbeenmadeoutornot. Thereis

C
ou

alsoanotherreasonforavoidingadetaileddiscussionastothe
complianceorotherwisewiththerequirementsoftheprovisionsof
theSARFEASIActandthe Rules,asthese issuesaresaidtobe

14

ig
h

pendingbeforetheDebtRecoveryAppellateTribunal.

Itisnotindisputethatthepossessionofthesaidflat

wastakenbybreakingopenthelockthathadbeenputthereonby

the complainant. It is also not in dispute that this was done

withoutanyorderfromtheDistrictMagistrateunderSection14of

ba
y

theSARFEASIAct.Whatisclaimedisthatthe respondentno.3
wereentitledtodoso,inviewoftheprovisionsoftheSARFEASAI
Act.ThequestioniswhethertheSARFEASIActpermitsasecured

om

creditor to take possession of the flat which is a secured

asset/interestbyuseofforceand/orbybreakingopenalockput

thereon.Suchasituationi.e.takingpossessionoftheflat(which
is a secured interest/asset) by the secured creditor by breaking
openthelockputthereon,isnotspecificallycontemplatedordealt
withundertheprovisionsofthesaidAct,ortherelevantrules.On
general principles, however, it would be difficult to accept the
correctnessoftheclaimthatasecuredcreditorwouldbeentitled

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

12/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

to do so under the provisions of the SARFEASI Act and the

C
ou

15

rt

relevantrules.

Undoubtedly,section14oftheSARFEASIActcannot

beheldtobemandatoryinthesensethatitcannotbeheldthat
thepossessionofasecuredinterestcannot,atall,betakenwithout

ig
h

obtainingassistancefromtheDistrictMagistrate,ascontemplated
undersection14oftheSARFEASIAct. Still,whenthequestion
wouldbeofuseofforce,itwouldbenecessaryforthesecured

creditortoobtainassistancefromtheDistrictMagistratefortaking
possessionofthesecuredasset.Ifbreakingopenthelockputona

ba
y

flat, and taking forcible possession of such flat by a secured

creditor is held to be permissible, on the ground that the
SARFEASIActempowersasecuredcreditortodosowithoutthe

om

interventionoftheDistrictMagistrate,thenitwouldbeextremely
dangerous.Theproblemsarisingfromholdingsuchacoursetobe

legalwillbemoreseriousincaseswheresuchflatisaresidential
one,containingarticlesofmovablepropertyinit.Theprovisions
oftheSARFEASIActand/ortheRulesthoughspeakofentitlement
of a secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset
without the intervention of Court, or the Chief Metropolitan
MagistrateorDistrictMagistrate(asthecasemaybe),aresilentas

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

13/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

towhatshouldbedonewithrespecttothemovableproperty,as

rt

maybecontainedinthesecuredassetwhichisaresidentialflat.

C
ou

Thus,itwouldbedifficultanddangeroustootoacceptthe
proposition that a secured creditor would be entitled to take
possession of a residential flat (which is a secured asset) by
breaking open the lock put thereon, on his own and without

ig
h

seekingtheassistanceoftheChiefMetropolitanMagistrate,orthe
DistrictMagistrate(asthecasemaybe),ascontemplatedunder

section14oftheSARFEASIAct.

16

Inthisregard,thecomplainanthasplacedrelianceon

ba
y

certainobservationsmadebythisCourtin ClarityGoldPvt.Ltd
andAnrVs.StateBankofIndia&ors, AIR2011Bom42. It
would be proper to reproduce the observations made by the

om

learnedSingleJudgeinparagraphno.19ofthejudgmentinthe

saidcase.

Section14oftheActisanenablingprovisionunder
which the secured creditor is empowered to seek
recourse to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as
the case may be, the District Magistrate for the
purposeoftakingpossession.ThoughSection14isan
enablingprovision,itwillbewhollyimpermissiblefor
asecuredcreditor,despitetheprovisionsofSection14,

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

14/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

aborrowerfromthesecuredasset.Ourlegalsystemis
governedbytheruleoflaw.Iftheborrowerhandsover

C
ou

possession voluntarily to the secured creditor in

rt

totakethelawintohisownhandsandtoforciblyevict

pursuanceofanoticeunderSection13(4),itwouldbe
opentothesecuredcreditortotakepossession.But,if
possessionisnotvoluntarilyhandedover,thesecured
creditorcannottakethelawintohisownhandsand

ig
h

secure vacant possession by taking recourse to the

policemachinery. Insuchanevent,theonlyremedy
thatisavailableistoseekanappropriateorderfrom
theChiefMetropolitanMagistrate,orasthecasemay

be, the District Magistrate. Parliament has

specifically authorized in subsection (2) those
authoritiestotakeorcausetobetakensuchstepsand

ba
y

use or caused to be used such force as may be

necessary.Authorizationoftheuseofforcefortaking
possession is therefore, a matter which lies in the

Section 14. No secured creditor can, by seeking

assistance of police machinery unilaterally carry out
the eviction of the borrower and take over forcible
possessionofthesecuredasset.

om

jurisdictionandpoweroftheauthoritiesprescribedby

(Emphasissupplied)

Inthiscase,eventheassistanceofthepolicemachineryhasnot
been taken by the respondent no.3 though force was used for
takingpossessionofthesaidflat.

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

15/23

Tilak

Mr.Sathyanarayan,thelearnedcounselforrespondent

rt

17

WP-4484-13(J)

C
ou

nos.2 and 3 has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme

Court of India in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. V.

NobleKumarandothers,(2013)9SupremeCourtCases620,
insupportofhiscontentionthattheactionoftherespondentno.3

ig
h

intakingpossessionofthesaidflatisperfectlylawfulandthat
therefore, there was no question of proceeding against the
respondent nos.2 and 3 on the allegation that they have

committedoffences.

I have gone through the said judgment. It is not

ba
y

18

possible to hold that this judgment supports the contention

advancedonbehalfoftherespondents. Onthe otherhand,as

om

pointedoutonbehalfofthepetitioner,observationsinthevery
judgmentindicatethatwhereforceisrequiredtobeused,itwould

notbeopenforasecuredcreditortotakepossessionofthesecured
assetwithouttakingrecoursetotheprovisionsofsection14ofthe
SARFEASIAct.Itwouldbeappropriatetoreproducetherelevant
observations.

Thus,therewillbethreemethodsforthesecuredcreditorto
takepossessionofthesecuredassets:

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

16/23

Tilak

36.1.

(i)

WP-4484-13(J)

Thefirstmethodwouldbewherethesecured

rt

creditor gives the requisite notice under Rule 8(1) and

wherehedoesnotmeetwithanyresistance.Inthatcase,

C
ou

the authorised officer will proceed to take steps as

stipulatedunderRule8(2)onwardstotakepossessionand
thereafter for sale of the secured assets to realise the
amountsthatareclaimedbythesecuredcreditor.
36.2.

(ii)

The second situation will arise where the

ig
h

securedcreditormeetswithresistancefromtheborrower
afterthenoticeunderRule8(1)isgiven.Inthatcasehe
will take recourse to the mechanism provided under
section 14 of the Act viz.making application to the

Magistrate.TheMagistratewillscrutinizetheapplication
asprovidedinSection14,andthenifsatisfied,appointan
officersubordinatetohimasprovidedundersection14(1

ba
y

A)totakepossessionoftheassetsanddocuments.Forthe
purpose the Magistrate may authorise the officer
concernedtousesuchforceasmaybenecessary.Afterthe

om

possession is taken the assets and documents will be

forwardedtothesecuredcreditor.

36.3.

(iii)

The third situation will be one where the

secured creditor approaches the Magistrate concerned

directlyundersection14oftheAct. TheMagistratewill
thereafterscrutinisetheapplicationasprovidedinSection
14,andthenifsatisfied,authoriseasubordinateofficerto
takepossessionoftheassetsanddocumentsandforward
themtothesecuredcreditorasunderclause36.2(ii)above.

(Emphasissupplied)

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

17/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

rt

These observations leave no manner of doubt that when the

questionofuseofforceforovercomingtheresistanceofferedby

C
ou

the borrower, for taking possession of the secured asset would

arise,recoursemustbetakentotheprovisionsofsection14ofthe
SARFEASIAct.
19

The things can be further complicated where the

ig
h

secured asset which is a residential flat is containing movable

property,andthepossessionofsuchasecuredassetistakenalong

withthemovablepropertycontainedtherein,byasecuredcreditor
onhisownandwithoutinvolvingtheStatemachineryinthe
processoftakingpossessionbyuseofforce. Intheinstantcase,

ba
y

thelockputonthepremiseswasbrokenopenattheinstanceof
the respondent no.2. Possession of the flat was taken in the
absence of the complainant or his representative. It is not in

om

dispute that several household articles including refrigerator,

washingmachine,businessfiles,computer,booksetc.asalsogold

andsilverornamentsbelongingtothecomplainantandhiswife
wereinthesaidflat. Whathashappenedtothearticleshasnot
beenverifiedorcheckedbyanyone,anditisonlythewordofthe
respondentsthatthemovablepropertycontainedinthesaidflat,
isstilllyingthere.Itisobviousthattherespondentno.3whichis
a body corporate is taking such a stand on the basis of the

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

18/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

information received by it from the persons who were actually

rt

involvedintheprocessoftakingphysicalpossessionofthesecured

C
ou

asset. Thecomplicationsthatcanariseintakingpossessionin
thismanneraretooobvious.Forinstance,ifthecomplainantwas
tonoticeorevenfalselyclaimforthatmatterthatsomeofthe
householdbelongingsaremissing,acaseoftheftwouldhavetobe

ig
h

registered. The possibility of thefts taking place in such cases

cannotbetotallyexcluded,butwhatismoresignificantisthatthe
possibility of the persons involved in the process of taking the

possessionbeingfalselyaccusedoftheft,mischiefetc,undoubtedly
exists.Takingpossessioninthismanneris,therefore,notquitein

ba
y

the interest of the secured creditor also. Thus, in any case, it

wouldbeadvisabletoinvolvethestatemachineryintheprocessof
obtainingpossessionofsuchasecuredassetevenfromthepointof

om

view of the secured creditor, when the process has been

undertakenbonafide.

20

Ihavecarefullygonethroughtheorderpassedbythe

learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint filed by the

complainant.Ifindthatthecomplaintcametobedismissedonly
on the ground that the complainant was a defaulter, and that
therefore,thepossessionofthesecuredassetwasrightlytakenbythe

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

19/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

respondent no.3. The learned Magistrate did not discuss as to

rt

'whethertherespondentno.3anditsOfficerswereentitledunder

C
ou

theprovisionsofSARFEASIAct,andtheRulestobreakopenthe
lockputonthepremises,andtakeforciblepossessionofthesaid
flatintheabsenceofthecomplainant'. TheMagistratedidnot
considerthelegaleffectsoftakingpossessioninsuchmanner,and

ig
h

therebykeepingthecomplainantoutofthepossessionofhisown
belongingskeptinthesaidflat.TheMagistratedidnotconsider
whetherbreakingoflockwouldamounttoanoffenceornot.The

Magistrate did not consider whether or not it was necessary to

ascertainwhetherthemovablepropertyofthecomplainantwas

ba
y

damaged/removed; and if so, whether it would amount to any

offence.Moreimportantly,theMagistratecompletelyignoredthe
avermentsmadeinthecomplainttotheeffectthatthepersonsof

om

therespondentno.3hadgonetothesaidflat,andhadthreatened
the complainant and his wife though the complainant had

specificallystatedthatrecordofthesaidincidentwasavailablein
aCD. TheMagistratedidnotconsiderwhetherona primafacie
viewofthematter,suchthreatswerefoundtohavebeengiven,
whetherthesamewouldamounttoanoffenceornot.

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

20/23

Tilak

21

WP-4484-13(J)

TheorderpassedbytheCourtofSessionsinRevision

rt

isalsoperfunctory.Itdoesnotconsiderwhetheronareadingof

C
ou

the complaint, a casefor ordering investigation into the matter

wasmadeout. ThelearnedAddl.SessionsJudgehasconcluded
thattherewasnoillegalityintheactsattributedtotherespondent
no.3anditsofficialsonlyonthebasisofthefindingoftheDebt

ig
h

RecoveryTribunalwhichwasnotpermissible.ThelearnedAddl.
SessionsJudge oughttohave come tohisown findingsin that

22

regard,andthattooindependently.

Inthecourseofarguments,Ihaveaskedthelearned

ba
y

counselfortherespondentnos.2and3astowhattheyproposeto
do with respect to the movable property belonging to the
complainantwhichisstilllyinginthesaidflat.Itwassubmitted

om

that a notice to remove the same has been given to the

complainant by publishing the same in newspapers. However,

there was no dispute with respect to the fact that while the
movable property is lying there, the flat in question cannot be
properlysold.

23

This was a matter where the complainant had

approachedtheMagistratewithaclaimthattherespondentnos.2
and3hadtakenforciblepossessionofhisflatwithoutfollowing

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

21/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

the provisions of the SARFEASI Act. His contention was that

rt

sendingnoticeontheaddressofthesaidflatwasamalafideact

C
ou

onthepartoftherespondentnos.2and3,astheywereawarethat
at the material time, the complainant and his wife were not
residing there. The complainant's case was also that the
respondentnos.2and3werenotentitledtobreakopenthelock

ig
h

putonthepremises,takeforciblepossessionthereofalongwith
themovablepropertycontainedtherein.

TheprovisionslaiddownundertheSARFEASIActare

24

drastic. The provisions permit a secured creditor to take

ba
y

possession of a secured asset without the intervention of the

Court.Theseprovisionsaredrastic,andtherefore,theprocedural
aspects thereof, must be scrupulously followed. Neither the

om

learnedMagistratenorthelearnedAddl.SessionsJudgerealized
theseriousnessoftheissueviz:whetherasecuredcreditorcould

takeforciblepossessionofasecuredassetwhichisaresidential
flat,bybreakingopenthelockputonthepremises,andthattoo,
in the absence of the borrower or his representative. None of
themconsideredwhetheranyoffenceshadbeencommittedbyany
persons inthe process of taking the possession of the said flat.
Simplybecausethepossessionisclaimedtohavebeentakenin

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

22/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

accordancewiththeprovisionsoftheSARFEASIAct,itwouldnot

rt

followautomaticallythatnooffenceshadbeencommittedinthe

25

C
ou

process.

Though I hold that the impugned orders are not

properand/orlegal,itisnoteasytodecide,onthefactsalleged

ig
h

andonthematerialthatwasbeforetheMagistrate,asto what
offences,ifany,havebeencommitted,andbywhom. Itisbecause
takingpossession,simplicitor,evenifinawrongfulmanner,would

not, byitself,amounttoanoffence. Itwouldalldependonthe

mensrea onthepartofthepersonorpersonsthataccompanied

ba
y

the act of taking possession. Whether any offences have been

committedintheprocessoftakingthepossessionofthesaidflat,
and if so, by whom, can be properly decided only after

om

investigationiscarriedout.

26

This was a case where commission of offences

including cognizable offences was alleged, and investigation

undersection156(3)oftheCodewasneededtoascertainwhether
any, and if so, what offences have been committed and by
whom?Sincetheprayerofthecomplainantwasthatinvestigation
intothematterascontemplatedundersection156(3)oftheCode

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::

23/23

Tilak

WP-4484-13(J)

C
ou

certainlygroundsfororderingsuchinvestigation.

rt

beordered,theMagistrateoughttohaveallowedit.Therewere

Petitionispartlyallowed.

28

Theimpugnedordersaresetaside.

29

The learned Magistrate is directed to order

ig
h

27

investigation,ascontemplatedundersection156(3)oftheCodeof

Ruleismadeabsoluteintheaboveterms.

(ABHAYM.THIPSAY,J)

om

ba
y

30

CriminalProcedure,inthecomplaintfiledbythepetitioner.

::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2015 01:00:08 :::