Jharkhand High Court
Ashim Kumar Sinha @ A.K.Sinha Aged About ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Represented ... on 25 February, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 158 of 2025
Ashim Kumar Sinha @ A.K.Sinha aged about 53 years, son of
Binay Kumar Sinha, resident of Puran Bihar, P.O. Argora, P.S.
Doranda, District- Ranchi. ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand represented through Senior
Superintendent of Police, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District-
Ranchi. ..... Respondent
With
W.P. (Cr.) No. 159 of 2025
Baijnath Singh @ B. N. Singh aged about 54 years, son of Ram
Dahin Singh, resident of Ashiananagar, P.O. Ashiananagar,
P.S. Patna Sadar, District- Patna, Bihar
...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand represented, through Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali,
District-Ranchi ..... Respondent
For the Petitioners : Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroo Pati, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. PP.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC I
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. Since these two Writ Petitions Criminal have been filed invoking
the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India inter alia with the common prayer for
issuance of appropriate writ / order / direction for quashing the
entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report
being Argora P.S. case no. 24 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 500, 501,
120B of the IPC, pending in the court of learned JMFC, Ranchi;
hence these two writ petitions are disposed of by this common
judgement.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner of W.P.
(Cr.) No. 158 of 2025 being the Chief Manager of Assest Recovery
of Branch, of Union Bank of India, Ranchi and the petitioner of the
W.P. (Cr.) No. 159 of 2025 being the General Manager / zonal
Head, Ranchi Zone of Union Bank of India, put the property of
the informant to auction sale, in conspiracy with the co-accused
persons, by undervaluing the property; with the aid of the valuer
and thereby defamed the informant causing financial loss to him
and there is also allegation against the petitioners that the same
was done based on forged documents by committing forgery,
cheating and criminal breach of trust.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.
Virupaksha and Anr. vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in
(2020) 4 SCC 440, para 16 and 17 of which reads as under :-
"16. We reiterate, the action taken by the Banks under the Sarfaesi Act is neither
unquestionable nor treated as sacrosanct under all circumstances but if there is
discrepancy in the manner the Bank has proceeded it will always be open to assail it
in the forum provided. Though in the instant case, the application filed by the
complainant before DRT has been dismissed and Appeal No. 523 of 2015 filed before
DRAT is also stated to be dismissed the appellants ought to have availed the remedy
diligently. In that direction, the further remedy by approaching the High Court to
assail the order of DRT and DRAT is also available in appropriate cases. Instead the
petitioner after dismissal of the application before the DRT filed the impugned
complaint which appears to be an intimidatory tactic and an afterthought which is
an abuse of the process of law. In the matter of present nature, if the grievance as put
forth is taken note of and if the same is allowed to be agitated through a complaint
filed at this point in time and if the investigation is allowed to continue it would
amount to permitting the jurisdictional police to redo the process which would be in
the nature of reviewing the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench in the writ proceedings by the High Court and the orders passed by
the competent court under the Sarfaesi Act which is neither desirable nor
permissible and the banking system cannot be allowed to be held to ransom by such
intimidation. Therefore, the present case is a fit case wherein the extraordinary
power is necessary to be invoked and exercised."
"17. The appellants herein had also referred to the provision as contained in Section 32
of the Sarfaesi Act which provides for the immunity from prosecution since
protection is provided thereunder for the action taken in good faith. The learned
Senior Counsel for the complainant has in that regard referred to the decision of this
Court in Army Headquarters v. CBI [Army Headquarters v. CBI, (2012) 6 SCC
228 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 88] to contend that the defence relating to good faith and
public good are questions of fact and they are required to be proved by adducing
evidence. Though on the proposition of law as enunciated therein there could be no
cavil, that aspect of the matter is also an aspect which can be examined in the
proceedings provided under the Sarfaesi Act. In a circumstance, where we have
already indicated that a criminal proceeding would not be sustainable in a matter of
the present nature, exposing the appellants even on that count to the proceedings
before the investigating officer or the criminal court would not be justified."
submits that, like the case of K. Virupaksha and Anr. vs. State
of Karnataka and Anr.(supra) in this case also, the informant is
the Directors of M/s Anpras Food Products Pvt. Ltd., which
establishment was given loan facility by the Union Bank of India
and the same was classified as 'NPA' as per the terms of the
Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter Union Bank of India filed a
recovery suit under section 19 of the RDBI Act, being the O.A. no.
170 of 2021. The informant made several journeys to the High
Court by filing writ petitions but remained unsuccessful and only
thereafter, upon remaining unsuccessful in all the forums, the
present FIR has been lodged with ulterior motive only to harass
the petitioners.
5. Drawing attention of this Court to Section 32 of the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002, which reads as under :-
"32. Protection of action taken in good faith.--No suit, prosecution or other legal
proceedings shall lie against 190[the Reserve Bank or the Central Registry or
any secured creditor or any of its officers] for anything done or omitted to be
done in good faith under this Act."
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
said section 32 of the said Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
prohibits the institution of any prosecution inter alia against any
officer of the secured creditors; which the Union Bank of India is
in this case, as whatever, the petitioners have done, the same was
done in good faith under the provisions of the said Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act.
6. It is next submitted that in the absence of any dishonest
inducement of the informant to part with any property, the
offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out. It is
next submitted that in the absence of any forgery, the offence
punishable under sections 467, 468, or, 471 of the IPC is not made
out, as there is no allegation of any specific false document having
been created by the petitioners. It is next submitted that this is an
attempt to convert a purely civil dispute to criminal offence by
putting the cloak of criminal offence on the same, hence, it is
submitted that the prayer as prayed for, in these two writ
petitions be allowed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the State by relying upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and
Others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, para 27 of the which reads as
under :-
"27. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very
wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The
Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on
sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima
facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when
the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in
their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule
can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage."
submits that though the High Court has very wide power but
the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its
exercise hence, it is submitted that the power under Article 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India ought not be used to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. It is lastly submitted that, these writ
petitions being without any merit be dismissed.
8. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going
through the materials available in the record, the undisputed fact
remains that the two petitioners of these two writ petitions, are
the officers of the secured creditor, in this case being the Union
Bank of India and the undisputed fact remains that the informant
agitated before several forums including the DRT, Ranchi and this
Court, but remained unsuccessful at every stage and there is no
allegation of any false document having been created by the
petitioners and in the absence of the same of any forgery having
been committed by either of the two petitioners. Thus, this Court
is of the considered opinion that none of the offences punishable
under Section 467, 468, 469 and 471, of the IPC is not made out.
9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is
concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence
under Section 406 is that there has to be some property entrusted
and dishonest mis-appropriation of the property entrusted.
10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioners of being entrusted with any
property nor there is any allegation of dishonest mis-
appropriation of the property. Under such circumstances, this
Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire
allegations made in the FIR are considered to be true in their
entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is
not made out against the petitioners.
11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is
concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence
is that the accused persons dishonestly induced the victim to part
with any property etc.
12. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against
the petitioner of cheating and or dishonestly inducing the
complainant or anyone else to part with any property. Under such
circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if
the entire allegation made in the FIR are considered to be true in
their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC
is not made out.
13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC is
concerned, the same provides punishment for defamation. The
offence punishable under Section 499 defines the defamation
which reads as under :
499. Defamation--Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read,
or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation
concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to
believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said,
except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
xxxxx
and the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under
Section 500 of the IPC are as under :-
(i) the accused made or published any imputation concerning
any person,
(ii) the said imputation was made by the words either spoken or
written which intends to be read or be seen by visible
representation.
(iii) the said imputation must have been made with the intent
to harm the reputation of the persons concerned.
14. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against
the petitioner of making or publishing the imputation concerning
the informant or anyone else. Under such circumstances, the
offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC is not made out, even
if the entire allegation made in the FIR are considered to be true in
their entirety.
15. So far as the offence punishable under Section 501 of IPC is
concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence
are -
(i) the accused printed or engraved a defamatory matter.
(ii) the accused know or had the reason to believe that the
matter was defamatory in character.
16. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against
the petitioners of having printing or engraved any defamatory
matter, knowingly or having the reason to believe the same.
Under such circumstance, this Court is of the considered view
that even if the entire allegations made in the FIR are considered
to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under
Section 501 of IPC is not made out against the petitioners.
17. Otherwise also, the protection under Section 32 of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as already indicated
above and in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Virupaksha and Anr. vs.
State of Karnataka and Anr. (supra), this court is of the
considered view that the registration of the FIR against the
petitioners, is in violation of Section 32 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002.
18. In view of the discussion above, this Court is of the considered
view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding vide Argora
P.S. case no. 24 of 2025 against the petitioners, will amount to
abuse of process of law, therefore, this is a fit case where the
entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report
being Argora P.S. case no. 24 of 2025 be quashed and set aside qua
the petitioners.
19. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the First
Information Report being Argora P.S. case no. 24 of 2025 is
quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
20. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly and in view of
the disposal of these writ petitions, the interlocutory applications
also stand disposed of being infructuous.
21. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court concerned
forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 25th February, 2025
Smita /AFR
