JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed for quashing of the Order dated 18.7.2017 on the file of the 44th ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc. No.4037/2017. 2. Vide impugned order, the learned Magistrate on the application of the respondent - Bank, has passed an order u/s.14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to 'SARFAESI Act' for short), directing the respondent - Bank herein to take possession of the application, schedule property towards the satisfaction of the creditors due and also further ordered directing the jurisdictional Police to give necessary assistance to the respondent-Bank in taking possession of the petition schedule property and the Bank was directed to bear the expenses if any incurred in this behalf. 3. I have heard the arguments of Sri Javali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri V.B. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned SPP-II for respondent No.2; and carefully perused the records. 4. On perusal of the petition averments and the objection statement filed by the first respondent, the admitted facts are as follows: The petitioner and his wife have taken financial assistance from the first respondent - Bank to the tune of Rs.15 crores (Fifteen Crores) and in fact they have mortgaged the property in dispute along with all other necessary documents by way of deposit of title deeds. There are three items of property mortgaged and the bank enforcing its right for recovery of outstanding liability by the petitioner and his wife to the tune of Rs.15,51,14,193/-, has initiated proceedings before the competent authorities and further initiated proceedings for the purpose of taking possession of the property. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had been running a company by name M/s.Geo Biotechnologies India Pvt. Ltd., has taken such an amount for the purpose of improving the business of the said Company. 5. It is argued by the petitioner's counsel that the first respondent under the SARFAESI Act issued notice on 12.12.2014 u/s.13(2) read with Section 13(3) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to pay the entire outstanding liability under the loan account within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. 5. It is argued by the petitioner's counsel that the first respondent under the SARFAESI Act issued notice on 12.12.2014 u/s.13(2) read with Section 13(3) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to pay the entire outstanding liability under the loan account within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Another notice was also issued on 10.3.2015 u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the same was served on the petitioner which is also published under two vernacular daily newspapers. 6. It is argued by the respondent's counsel that after lapse of time granted to the petitioner, in order to take the actual possession of the property, the first respondent moved the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate u/s.14 of the Act in Crl.Misc. No.4037/2017 and the learned Judge has passed an order dated 18.7.2017 and being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 7. It is also not in dispute that, besides filing a suit for partition, the son of the petitioner by name Sri K.N.Surag has also filed Writ Petition Nos.14919 & 15263-15267/2015(GM-DRT), which came to be disposed of. The respondent - Corporation Bank, being aggrieved by the order passed in the said Writ Petitions, has filed Writ Appeal before this court in WA Nos.1034/2016 and WA Nos.3456-3460/2016, wherein the Division Bench of this Court relegated the petitioner therein to the Debt Recovery Tribunal for raising objection u/s.17of the SARFAESI Act. Later, being aggrieved by the order of the 44th ACMM in Crl.Misc.No.4037/2017, the son of the petitioner Sri K.N. Surag has also filed Writ Petition Nos.34604/2017 & 34651-652/2017. After hearing all the parties, the Writ Petition was disposed of by dismissing the said Writ Petition by a detailed order holding that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned 44th ACMM, Bengaluru, u/s.14 of the said Act. However, the court has given opportunity to the petitioner therein or the petitioner herein who are the borrowers to deposit a sum of Rs.5 crores with the respondent Corporation Bank against the outstanding dues before the matter is argued before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The said Writ Petition was dismissed because the petitioner in the said case Mr. Surag has approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal u/s.17 of the Act and the matter is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The said Writ Petition was dismissed because the petitioner in the said case Mr. Surag has approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal u/s.17 of the Act and the matter is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In the mean time, after the disposal of the said Writ Petitions, the present petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. for the same relief as prayed in the said Writ Petitions by the petitioner, who is the son of the petitioner herein. 8. In this background, the court has to examine whether the petition itself is maintainable before this court or not. In view of the Writ Petition, which has already been disposed of wherein the petitioner is also a party to the said proceedings (3rd respondent). Secondly, whether the order of the learned Magistrate is illegal or in any manner liable to be interfered with, by this court. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Javali has categorically argued before this court that Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act says as to how possession has to be taken. Chapter 4A of the said provision has to be strictly followed. The learned counsel has further submitted that Section 14(3) of the Act is not applicable to High Court u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. read with writ jurisdiction, the court can exercise powers to interfere with such orders of the learned Magistrate. He also contended that as per Section 26(d), the subject matter has not been registered before the competent authorities. However, the said argument has been replied and compliance u/s.26(d) of the Act said to have been made and it is no more res-integra. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contends that Section 13 of the Act empowers the Bank to take appropriate measures for recovery of the amount and even the same has been considered by the writ court in the Writ Petition filed by the son of the petitioner and the same has already been disposed of. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two notices were issued that is on 28.2.2015 and 10.3.2015, but no action has been taken so far as the notice dated 28.2.2015. However, the said factum of issuance of notice on 28.2.2015 has not been mentioned in the petition before this court. 11. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two notices were issued that is on 28.2.2015 and 10.3.2015, but no action has been taken so far as the notice dated 28.2.2015. However, the said factum of issuance of notice on 28.2.2015 has not been mentioned in the petition before this court. 11. In this background, the court has to examine whether this Petition is maintainable before this court or not? 12. First let me examine Section 14 of the SURFACI Act which reads thus: "Section 14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.- (1) Where the possession of any secured asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, 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 possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him-- (a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and (b) forward such asset and documents to the secured creditor. [Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorised officer of the secured creditor, declaring that- (i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the total claim of the Bank as on the date of filing the application; (ii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties and that the Bank or Financial Institution is holding a valid and subsisting security interest over such properties and the claim of the Bank or Financial Institution is within the limitation period; (iii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties giving the details of properties referred to in sub-clause (ii) above; (iv) the borrower has committed default in repayment of the financial assistance granted aggregating the specified amount; (v) consequent upon such default in repayment of the financial assistance the account of the borrower has been classified as a nonperforming asset; (vi) affirming that the period of sixty days notice as required by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13, demanding payment of the defaulted financial assistance has been served on the borrower; (vii) the objection or representation in reply to the notice received from the borrower has been considered by the secured creditor and reasons for non-acceptance of such objection or representation had been communicated to the borrower; (viii) the borrower has not made any repayment of the financial assistance in spite of the above notice and the Authorised Officer is, therefore, entitled to take possession of the secured assets under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 13 read with section 14 of the principal Act; (ix) that the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under had been complied with: Provided further that on receipt of the affidavit from the Authorized Officer, the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall after satisfying the contents of the affidavit pass suitable orders for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets [within a period of thirty days from the date of application]: [Provided further that if no order is passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate within the said period of thirty days for reasons beyond his control, he may, after recording reasons in writing for the same, pass the order within such further period but not exceeding in aggregate sixty days.] Provided also that the requirement of filing affidavit stated in the first proviso shall not apply to proceeding pending before any District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, on the date of commencement of this Act.] [(1A) The District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may authorise any officer subordinate to him,-- (i) to take possession of such assets and documents relating thereto; and (ii) to forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor.] (2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary. (3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate [any officer authorised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate] done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority." Under this provision, the creditor can make an application to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or to the District Magistrate to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured asset. If the secured asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor, with reference to the secured asset, the secured creditor may for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, he can make a request in writing to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate or within whose jurisdiction such secured asset or other document relating thereto may be situated or found to take possession thereto and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall on such request being made to them, take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto and forward such assets and documents to such secured creditors. However, the above said power of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is subject to the proviso attached to the said provision which says that an authorized officer of the secured creditor has to file an affidavit duly mentioning the contents of the said proviso. Thereafter, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate may authorize any officer subordinate to him to take possession of such assets and documents relating thereto. Sub-clause (2) of 13 of the Act, also empowers the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate to use such steps or course to be used to such powers if it is necessary. Sub-clause 3 of Section 14 of the Act is a bar to challenge the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate in any court or before any authority. 13. Section 13 of the Act particularly, Section 13(4) of the Act, empowers the secured creditor to approach the jurisdictional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to take possession of the secured asset of the borrower in case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub Section (2). 13. Section 13 of the Act particularly, Section 13(4) of the Act, empowers the secured creditor to approach the jurisdictional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to take possession of the secured asset of the borrower in case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub Section (2). The secured creditor may take recourse to one or more measures mentioned of sub Section (4) of Section 13 particularly in this case, the said right has been exercised to take possession of the assets of the borrower in order to realize the dues. 14. Therefore, on combined reading of the above said two provisions, it is clear that the secured creditor has got a statutory right to take recourse u/s.14 of the Act irrespective of any other mode recognized for the purpose of taking possession of the secured asset. 15. In this background, when an embargo is created under sub clause (3) of Section 14 of the Act that no court can interfere with the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, which can be called in question in any court of law. In this context, Section 17 of the Act also play a dominant role. 16. U/s.17 of the Act, when an alternative efficacious remedy is provided, that if any action is taken by the secured creditor under ss.(4) of Section 13 of the Act, or his authorized officer, if any person is aggrieved including the borrower can make an application to the Debt Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within 45 days from the date of which, such measures had been taken. Further, the Debt Recovery Tribunal has got all powers to inquire into such an application and if it is established before the Debt Recovery Tribunal that the secured creditor cannot take possession or declare that the possession taken is invalid and restore the possession of the secured asset or the acknowledgement to the borrower to such other aggrieved person who made an application u/s.17 of the Act. Therefore, on plain reading of this Section, it gives an ample right and opportunity to the aggrieved person on the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate on the basis of the right exercised by the secured creditor u/s.13(4) of the Act has got an alternative efficacious remedy. Therefore, on plain reading of this Section, it gives an ample right and opportunity to the aggrieved person on the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate on the basis of the right exercised by the secured creditor u/s.13(4) of the Act has got an alternative efficacious remedy. Therefore, on merits of the case, the debtor or borrower has no right to question the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate unless the order itself is patently illegal or the procedure followed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is so perverse or prejudicial to the borrower. 17. Of course, as I have noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in (2014) 6 SCC 1 between Harshad Govardhan Sondagar and International Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd., and Others, has made it clear that the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate can also be challenged before the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by an aggrieved party and if such challenge is made, the High Court can examine the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate as the case may be in accordance with the settled principles of law. Therefore, though the alternative efficacious remedy is available, it does not absolutely take away the powers of the High Court in dealing with the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate u/s.14 of the Act. 18. However, as I have already noted that the son of the petitioner has approached this court challenging the same order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, wherein the petitioner is also a party to the said proceedings who participated as respondent No.3. This court while disposing of the Writ Petitions, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harshad's case cited supra, also relying upon two more decisions reported in (2012) 11 SCC 224 in the case of Columbia Sportswear Co. Vs. Director Income Tax; and (2014) SCC 479 in the case of Jagadish Singh Vs. Heeralal and others; ultimately exercising powers u/s.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, at paragraph 7 has categorically held that - "the High Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the 44th ACMM, Bengaluru, u/s.14 of the Act". Vs. Director Income Tax; and (2014) SCC 479 in the case of Jagadish Singh Vs. Heeralal and others; ultimately exercising powers u/s.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, at paragraph 7 has categorically held that - "the High Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the 44th ACMM, Bengaluru, u/s.14 of the Act". Therefore, whether the order is challenged by the petitioner or any person aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate, if the same is already subjected to challenge under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court exercising its powers has already came to the conclusion that no illegality is committed by the 44th ACMM, Bengaluru, in passing the order u/s.14 of the Act, this court once again cannot re- enter into the same area, and totally re-appreciating the materials and come to a different conclusion, because this court has already considered the factual and legal aspects of the said order and found that the order is sound and legal. 19. It is also worth to note here that the petitioner herein being the respondent No.3 has not raised any of his little finger before the writ court stating that how the said order of the learned Magistrate is illegal so far as he is concerned. So that the writ court itself could have considered all the conflicts at once and disposes of the said matter resolving all the procedural or legal aspects in such cases. Therefore, in my opinion, when once the Writ Court has come to the conclusion that the said order as legal, if this court come to a different conclusion, it virtually amounts to nullifying the order of this court in the above said writ proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in this regard. 20. It is relevant to note here, the decision of this court reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4663 between Vijaya Bank S.D. Road Branch Vs. M/s.Shameem Transport, wherein this Court has categorically considered Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act and also how the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has to act upon u/s.14 of the Act. 20. It is relevant to note here, the decision of this court reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4663 between Vijaya Bank S.D. Road Branch Vs. M/s.Shameem Transport, wherein this Court has categorically considered Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act and also how the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has to act upon u/s.14 of the Act. It is categorically observed in the said case that Section 14(1) of the Act in effect, the learned Magistrate only provides assistance and necessary protection to the secured creditors in taking possession of the assets and documents referred to under sub Section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, when the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is required to act u/s.14(1) of the Act, he is required to hear neither the borrower nor any person claiming through him. Therefore, it goes without saying that if any aggrieved party, affected by the order of the learned Magistrate u/s.14 of the Act, he has to take recourse normally and generally u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act. 21. On meticulous observation of the above said provisions and the rulings, it is clear that if an opportunity is given to the petitioner as contemplated under the Act and Rules to repay the debt and if he does not pay the amount, then Sections 13(4) and 14 of the Act creates a statutory right in favour of the secured creditor to exercise its remedy to take possession of the property. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has approached for one time settlement, but the same has not been properly considered by the Bank. 23. Of course, he has relied upon the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 5 SCC 610 between Mathre Varghese and M. Amritha Kumar, wherein it was observed that, sub Section (8) of Section 13 of the Act would show that a borrower can tender to the secured creditor the dues together with all costs after the notice being served upon him along with expenses incurred by the secured creditor at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer. In the event of such depositing or payment, the sale or transfer of the said secured assets shall be stayed till the last minute before which the sale or transfer is to be effected. In the event of such depositing or payment, the sale or transfer of the said secured assets shall be stayed till the last minute before which the sale or transfer is to be effected. No such tender of all the dues appears to have been made by the petitioner, though some amount is said to have been paid. It is also not the case of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.5 crores is deposited in obedience of the order of the Writ Court. 24. Though the learned counsel has submitted that earlier a notice was issued and no action has been taken but there is no dispute that subsequently one more notice has been issued and after lapse of 60 days, action has been taken, as the borrower has not repaid the loan amount. Therefore, it virtually amounts enhancing the period in favour of the borrower to make arrangements for the payment. When once the notice is issued in accordance with law and the borrower within the stipulated period has not repaid the amount, then he cannot restrain or prevent the creditor from exercising the power u/s.13(4) and 14 of the Act. There is no mention in the petition or during the course of arguments that such condition has been fulfilled that the borrower has tendered the secured creditor of all the dues together with all costs charges and expenses. Therefore, the above said ruling is not applicable so far as this case is concerned. 25. On perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate, which is impugned before this court, the learned Magistrate has in detail considered the contents of the application filed before it and also considering the outstanding dues has passed a detailed order to give assistance to the Bank for the purpose of taking possession with the Police help. As it is said, no inquiry is contemplated u/s.14 by the learned Magistrate, if he is satisfied with regard to the existence of the debt and right of the secured creditor, such order can be passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any irregularity or illegality committed by the learned Magistrate in passing such orders. The whole of the allegations are against the bank authorities that they have not provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to pay the amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any irregularity or illegality committed by the learned Magistrate in passing such orders. The whole of the allegations are against the bank authorities that they have not provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to pay the amount. In the absence of any illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Magistrate and further as the orders of the learned Magistrate has already held to be legal by this court, in the Writ Petition noted supra, it is very difficult for this court to quash such proceedings. 26. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not left with any remedy. It is worth to note here a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 9 SCC 620 between Standara Chartered Bank and R.Shiva Subramaniyan and another, with connected matter, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has made an observation and held that - "Held, it is not mandatory for secured creditor (Bank herein) to make an attempt to obtain possession on his own before approaching Magistrate - Secured creditor Bank/FI can resort to any one of three methods available to it to take possession of secured assets: (1) by giving notice under R 8(1) of 2002 Rules if no resistance from borrower is met; (2) by making application to Magistrate, when it meets with resistance from borrower after notice; or (3) by directly approaching Magistrate under s.14 - Further, appeal u/s.17 is available to borrower only after losing possession of secured asset by whatever manner, either through process contemplated u/s.14 or without resorting to such process. Hence, plea that only after making unsuccessful attempt to take possession of secured asset, can the secured creditor Bank/FI approach Magistrate lest it would deprive borrower remedy of appeal u/s.17. The said approach by the petitioner is mis-conceived. When the basic requirement u/s.13(2) has been complied, the Magistrate has no other go except issuing the order u/s.14. No other procedure is contemplated under the said Section". Hence, the petitioner is still having the remedy under the Act itself even if he looses possession. 27. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl. Misc. No.4037/2017 dated 18.7.2017. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.