Allahabad High Court
Rajnath Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 6 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46156
Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 852 of 2025
Applicant :- Rajnath Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Dhar Dubey,Parijat Mishra Belaura
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Instant application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 27.3.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya in Case No.347 of 2025 titled as India Shelter Finance Vs. Poonam Singh and others, and all subsequent proceedings based on the aforesaid order. Further prayer is to stay further proceedings of sale and delivery of possession of properties of petitioners Gata No.754 measuring 68.54 sq.mt. situated at Village Manjhanpur, Pargana Ghandasa, Tehsil Milkipur, District Ayodhya.
The arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicants is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya while considering the Application No.347 of 2025, titled as India Shelter Finance Vs. Poonam Singh and others, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2002'), passed the order directing that the possession of the mortgaged property Gata No.754, area measuring 68.54 sq. meters, situated at Village Manjhanpur, Pargana Khandasa, Tehsil Milkipur, District Ayodhya be handed over to authorized representative, Hari Om Pathak and police aid will also be provided, whereas the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not empowered to pass such order.
For ready reference, Section 14 (1) of the Act, 2002 is extracted as under:-
"Section 14(1) Where the possession of any secured asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured assets is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purposes of taking possession or control of any such secured assets, request in writing the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take position thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him-:"
Referring the aforesaid provisions, he argued that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, has power to pass order while invoking provision of Section 14 (1) of the Act 2002. He added that the intent of legislature is overt in the provision that the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not authorized to exercise power under the aforesaid provisions. Therefore, submission is that the order dated 27.3.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya is without jurisdiction and is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State opposed the abovenoted contentions and vehemently submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has equal power as to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under the relevant provision of the Act 2002. He further submits that controversy has already been settled by the Judgment and order passed by the co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abhishek Mishra Versus State of U.P. & Others reported in 2016 SCC OnLine All 2876, thus, submission is that no interference is warranted.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material brought on record, it transpires that in the instant application, the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya has been assailed which was passed on application under Section 14(1)(2) of the Act 2002. From bare reading of the relevant provision, it reveals that the District Magistrate and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the concerned area have been empowered to invoke the jurisdiction under the aforesaid provision. This issue has time and again been dealt with and the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the issue has specifically held that the Cr.P.C. provides power to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate qua Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Further in the case of Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Vs. D. Visalakshi and another reported in (2019) 20 SCC 47, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate in non metropolitan areas, exercises the same power which is exercised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in metropolitan areas and the same would not contradict the procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the Act 2002 Act and moreso, this will not cause any prejudice to any of the parties. Since the law has already been settled and redressed by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the applicants is unsustainable.
Consequently, instant application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.8.2025/Ram Murti
