ORDER : B. Kemal Pasha, J. 1. Alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 465, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners and two other persons, three private complaints were filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam. Those three complaints were referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and consequently, Crime Nos. 1212/2015, 1211/2015 and 1195/2015 of the Kollam East Police Station were registered for the said offences. The 1st petitioner herein is the Chief Manager of UCO Bank, Kollam Branch and the 2nd petitioner is the Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank, Pondicherry. It is a fact that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated at the instance of the Bank against the 2nd respondent in these matters for recovery of amounts due to the Bank from the said persons towards loan transactions. In the private complaint, it is alleged that the petitioners along with the other accused hatched a criminal conspiracy, forged and fabricated false documents, and made use of it as genuine for initiating SARFAESI proceedings. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the sale in the SARFAESI proceedings was held in these cases with the consent of the party, who had created equitable mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds. In such case, there was no room for filing such a private complaint alleging the aforesaid offences. 3. Going by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 , the present attempt in getting the crime registered on the basis of private complaints is nothing but clear abuse of process of court and the F.I.Rs. are got registered against statutory authorities by misusing the remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the case in the decision noted Supra, the borrower of a housing loan, who had failed to repay the loan amount to the Bank, against whom SARFAESI proceedings were initiated, had got the F.I.R. registered against the statutory authorities by misusing the remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Apex Court has cautioned the courts of the Magistrates in dealing with such situation. If borrowers are allowed to have recourse to criminal law in the manner it has been taken in these cases, it needs no special emphasis to state, has the inherent potentiality to affect the/narrows of economic health of the nation. If persons are alleged to have recourse to such procedure, the aim and objective of the SARFAESI Act as such would certainly be defeated. Matters being so, these are fit cases wherein Annexure-I complaints and Annexure-II F.I.Rs. against the petitioners, can be quashed. In the result, these Crl. M.Cs. are allowed and Annexure-I complaints and Annexure-II F.I.Rs. against the petitioners are quashed.