Jharkhand High Court
Rakesh Sehgal Aged About 57 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand Represented ... on 23 September, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 579 of 2024
----
1. Rakesh Sehgal aged about 57 years, son of Shri Atam Parkash
Sehgal, General Manager, Indian Bank (Formerly Allahabad Bank),
Office at Indian Bank; Field General Manager Office, BUddh Marg
Patna P.O. - GPO, P.S. - Kotwali, District - Patna, Bihar, Pin -
800001
2. Shanti Lal Jain, aged about 59 years, son of Suwa Lal Jain, MD
and CEO, Indian Bank (Formerly Allahabad Bank), Corporate
Office, PB No. 5555, 254-260, Avai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, PO and PS - Royapettah, Chennai, Tamilnadu
.... Petitioners
-- Versus --
1. The State of Jharkhand represented through Officer In-charge,
Lower Bazar Police Station, PO - Lower Bazar, PS - Lower Bazar,
District - Ranchi
2. Kanta Tekriwal, W/o Shri Prakash Tekriwal, R/o Main Road, 1st
Floor, Hotel Pearl Building, near Sarjana Chowk, PO and PS -
Lower Bazar, District - Ranchi .... Respondents
With
----
Ram Swarup Sarkar aged about 55 years, son of Ram Saran
Sarkar, Zonal Manager, Indian Bank (Formerly Allahabad Bank),
office at 4th Floor, SPG Mart, Bahu Bazar; PO and PS - Chutia,
District - Ranchi .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1. The State of Jharkhand represented through Officer In-charge,
Lower Bazar Police Station, PO - Lower Bazar, PS - Lower Bazar,
District - Ranchi
2. Kanta Tekriwal, W/o Shri Prakash Tekriwal, R/o Main Road, 1st
Floor, Hotel Pearl Building, near Sarjana Chowk, PO and PS -
--1-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 579 of 2024
Lower Bazar, District - Ranchi .... Respondents
With
----
1. K.B. Bhuiyan @ Kirtibardhan Bhuiya aged about 64 years, son
of Late Narayan Bhuiyan, Plot No.817, Sarita Mahal, Road No.1,
Mahavir Nagar, Near BDA Building, PO and PS - Jharpada,
District - Bhubaneshwar, Odisha
2. Ajit Kumar, aged about 57 years, son of Hari Nandan Prasad,
Ramnagar, Kadma Road, PO and PS - Kadma, District -
Singhbhum East .... Petitioners
-- Versus --
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Officer In-charge, Lower Bazar Police Station, PO - Lower
Bazar, PS - Lower Bazar, District - Ranchi
3. Kanta Tekriwal, aged about 62 years W/o Shri Prakash
Tekriwal, R/o Main Road, 1st Floor, Hotel Pearl Building, near
Sarjana Chowk, PO and PS - Lower Bazar, District - Ranchi
.... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
:- Mr. Rohan Kashyap, Advocate
For respondent No.2 :- Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate
:- Ms. Sugandha Jaiswal, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Deepankar Roy, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Sanket Khanna, AC to AAG-V
----
03/23.09.2024 In all these petitions, the common FIR is under challenge
and in view of that all these petitions are being heard together with
consent of all the parties.
--2-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 579 of 2024
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned
counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.2.
3. The prayer in all these writ petitions is made for quashing of the
entire criminal proceeding arising out of Lower Bazar P.S. case No.181 of
2024 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Ranchi.
4. The FIR was registered alleging therein one Kanta Tekriwal,
aged about 62 years, wife of Sri Prakash Tekriwal, resident of Main Road,
Ranchi, has alleged that she has purchased the land situated at Khata
No. 94, Plot No. 663, thana No. 217 at Village Dungra, P.O. Hardag, P.S.
Khunti, District Khunti, area 429 decimals from the then Allahabad Bank,
Harmu Colony Branch, Ranchi (now Indian Bank) in an auctionRef:
AB/HARMU/SALE-CERT/001/15-16 dated 18.05.2015 under the SARFAESI
Act 2002, certifying the sale under the signature of K.B. Bhuinya, the
then Chief Manager-cum- Branch Head, (Authorised Officer), Indian Bank
(Formerly Allahabad Bank), Harmu Road Branch, Harmu Road, Ranchi.
Pursuant to purchase of above referred property from Allahabad Bank,
Harmu Colony Branch, Ranchi (now Indian Bank), the Branch by a letter
dated 22.02.2016 had issued land related documents like, verified copy
of Title Deed (Deed No. 1259/1215, Book No.1, Volume No. 39, Page 223
to 264, year 2010 dated 22.11.2010, time 16:01:53; verified copy of
Mutation; verified copy of Rent Receipt, copy of judgment from DRT and
--3-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 579 of 2024
High Court to the respondent informant but did not hand over the
original copies of the land. She requested the Bank officials to provide
the original documents of the land to which the bank by its letter dated
15.09.2021 issued under the signature of Ajit Kumar, the then Chief
Manager cum-Branch Head, Indian Bank (Formerly Allahabad Bank),
Harmu Road Branch, Harmu Road, Ranchi handed over the original
Hukumnama signed by Sri Govindram Marwari on 10.06.1940 and the
Bank even informed that other original documents is not traceable and
the same will be traced from DRT or DRAT. She also alleges that till date
Bank has not provided the original documents of the land to her.
It is further alleged that time and again she requested the Bank officials
to provide the original documents relating to the land as she has validly
purchased the land from the Bank itself in an open auction sale but the
malafide intention of the Bank and its officials can be seen from the fact
that they did not even provided the original documents relating to the
land despite the fact that she has deposited total amount of Rs.
1,12,10,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lac and Ten Thousand only)
and got the Sale Certificate from the Bank. She further states that
recently in May, 2024 when she again visited the Bank and demanded
the original documents relating to the land, she came to know that Bank
and its officials having malafide intention from beginning has again sold
the same land by way of auction through Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi
in R.P. No. 649 of 2016 on 10.03.2022. The said illegal act by the Bank
and its official has caused a huge financial loss and harassment to the
--4-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 579 of 2024
informant. Informant further alleges that the bank and all it's the then
officials and present officials are engaged in the said illegal business of
auctioning the property more than one time so that Bank can earn illegal
profit from the hard- earned money of the bonafide persons. It is alleged
that the Bank and its officials are taking undue advantage of their official
position and cheating their customers as right from the beginning of sale
to her and the Bank and its officials taking undue influence of their
official position pre-planned that they will not provide the original
documents to her so that the Bank and its officials can again auction the
same property afterwards to other person Pankaj Kumar Yadav and
Surrender Yadav both Director Swarnaprabha Construction Pvt. Ltd.,
regd. Office at Chanho, near Chanho gas plant, P.S. Muffasil, P.O. Oriya,
District Hazaribagh and also the possession was given to Swarnaprabha,
e-procurement technologies Ltd. 208, 2nd floor, District Center Janakpur,
New Delhi and Mr. Kanhaiya Kumar Recovery Officer (DRT), Ranchi made
possible illegal act so, the bank can earn more money.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners in W.P. (Cr.) No.579 of 2024 are the General Manager and
Managing Director-cum-Chief Executive Officer of the Indian Bank,
petitioner in W.P. (Cr.) No.585 of 2024 has joined the post of Zonal
Manager, Ranchi pursuant to transfer order dated 03.05.2024 and
functioning as such till date. He further submits that the petitioners in
W.P. (Cr.) No.589 of 2024 were earlier posted as Branch Head of the
Harmu Road Branch of the then Allahabad Bank. He then submits that on
--5-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 579 of 2024
18.03.2011 loan was sanctioned to one Hemant Kumar and his wife
Meena Devi was guarantor-cum-Mortgagor and the said account was
declared NPA on 28.09.2014. The then Allahabad Bank sold the property
to Kanta Tekriwal under SARFAESI Act for Rs.1,12,10,000/- on
21.04.2015, who is the respondent No.2. He submits that on 13.07.2015,
the then Allahabad Bank filed an Original Application under Section
13(10) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the borrowers for recovery of
residual amount of Rs.1,06,73,811.31/- which was registered as O.A.
No.394/2015. He further submits that the learned DRT allowed the
Original Application by order dated 01.10.2016 by holding that to further
secure the repayment of the Bank dues, the defendant No.2 with the
intention to create security created equitable mortgage on 18.03.2011
but the mortgaged property was auction sold for Rs.1,10,97,900 under
Securitization Act (without intervention of Court/Tribunal) and the sale
proceeds were adjusted in Cash Credit account on 21.05.2015. As such,
the applicant has not brought on record the copies of the title deed of
the properties which were mortgaged and Recovery Proceeding R.P.
No.649/2016 was initiated on 2016. The then Allahabad Bank under the
provisions of Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 assigned the debt in
favour of Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) M/s Omkara Assets
Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. vide an assignment agreement dated 29.06.2018
and accordingly the rights available to the Bank under the judgment
dated 01.10.2016 got assigned in favour of the said Asset Reconstruction
Company. On 28.01.2020 Substitution petition was filed in Recovery
--6-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 579 of 2024
Proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal which was allowed. He then
submits that on 04.03.2020, the merger of Allahabad Bank and Indian
Bank was notified in Gazette of India and after merger the new Entity
Indian Bank came into existence on 01.04.2020. He submits that the
property in question was auction resold by Recovery Officer, as an
uncharged property, following the procedure of paper publication. Bid
money was deposited in favour of Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC)
M/s Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd on 11.02.2022.
6. In the above backgrounds, he submits that he has got
instruction from the responsible officer of the Bank, who is present in the
Court that auction sale to the subsequent purchaser is wrong and no
property can be transferred to an already sold property to the
subsequent auction purchaser. He submits that one of the allegations is
made that the original sale deed is not being handed over to the
respondent No.2 that will be taken care of and that will be handed over
within three working days to the respondent No.2. He further submits
that he has got instruction that the Bank will take all efforts to provide
the possession of the respondent No.2. He further submits that so far the
subsequent sale deed is concerned that is a nullity in view of the
judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SK. Golam
Lalchand vs. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal
Bayes & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.4177 of 2024.
7. By way of relying on the above judgment, he submits that since
that document is itself a void document and in view of Section 31 of
--7-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 579 of 2024
Specific Relief Act, 1963 is not required to be involved. On this ground,
he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed as
these petitioners have got no role and they have been implicated in the
petition because they were posted in the Bank.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits
that in view of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, the grievance of the respondent No.2 is fulfilled.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that
if the bank is going to fulfill the undertaking which has been argued in
the course of the proceeding, the respondent No.2 will be satisfied and in
view of that the criminal proceeding can be quashed against these
petitioners.
10. In view of the above submission of learned counsel appearing
for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the FIR it
transpires that for re-auction sale of the property in question, the present
FIR has been registered but how the proceeding has proceeded that has
been recorded in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners which has been accepted by the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No.2. In view of the undertaking given before this
Court on instruction to the effect that the Bank will take all efforts to
provide the possession of the petitioner and the original sale deed will be
handed over to the petitioner within three working days, the grievance of
the respondent No.2 is fulfilled. The subsequent sale itself is a void
document and in view of that, that has got no force in the eye of law as
--8-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 579 of 2024
has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SK. Golam
Lalchand vs. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal
Bayes & Ors. (supra) relied by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners.
11. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire
criminal proceeding arising out of Lower Bazar P.S. case No.181 of 2024
pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi, so
far these petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed.
12. These petitions are allowed in above terms and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Sangam/
--9-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 579 of 2024
