Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2124 (RAJ)

Sunita Maheshwari v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-07

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2019
ORDER : Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1521/2019 seeking fair investigation of FIR No. 97/2019, registered at Police Station Vidyadhar Nagar, District Jaipur City (North). 2. Employees of the Bank of Maharashtra have preferred Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1114/2019 seeking quashing of FIR qua the employees of Bank of Maharashtra. 3. It is contended by counsel for the complainant that complainant's son committed suicide on 02.01.2019. Bank employees visited the mortgaged property on 29.12.2018. It is contended that names of bank employees were mentioned in the suicide note, hence Police be directed to conduct fair investigation in the case. 4. Counsel for the employees of Bank of Maharashtra contends that in the suicide note, the only allegation against two of the bank employees i.e. petitioner No. 4 & 6 is that they have made the account N.P.A., as a result of which deceased could not continue his business. It is contended that proceedings for making the account N.P.A. were done in accordance with guidelines issued by the R.B.I. and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was also initiated. 5. My attention has been drawn to Section 32 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 6. It is also contended that there is no abatement of suicide on behalf of the bank employees. They had visited the mortgaged property which they are required to visit as per the bank norms. 7. Counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1114/2019 has placed reliance on "Priyanka Srivastava & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2015 (3) RLW 2404 (SC)" and "Rajesh vs. State of Haryana AIR 2019 SC 478 ". 8. It is contended that the accounts were made N.P.A. on 29.08.2018 and 30.10.2018. It is also contended that several notices were given to the deceased to pay the due amount. From perusal of the suicide note, it is not revealed that there was any instigation on the part of the bank employees. 9. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the misc. petition seeking quashing of FIR. It is contended that a cognizable offence has been committed and Police has all the right to investigate the case. From perusal of the suicide note, it is not revealed that there was any instigation on the part of the bank employees. 9. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the misc. petition seeking quashing of FIR. It is contended that a cognizable offence has been committed and Police has all the right to investigate the case. Deceased in his suicide note has specifically mentioned the name of two bank employees and in the last line of the suicide note, it has been mentioned that Metro Cash and Carry and Bank of Maharashtra are responsible for his death. It is contended that when FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence, Court should permit the Investigating Agency to investigate the case. Reliance is placed on "Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2018 (3) SCC Page 106." 10. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the case dairy and the material collected by the Police as well as FIR. 11. It is not in dispute that the accounts were made N.P.A. by the Bank. The deceased in his suicide note has mentioned that the amount was not paid by Metro Cash and Carry and the account was wrongly made N.P.A. so his entire business was ruined and that he is not having any hope. The action of the officers of the Bank in deciding to visit the mortgaged property is a routine exercise which the Bank officers are required to do in cases where the account has been made N.P.A. Section 32 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 provides protection to the secured creditor or any of his officers from any suit, prosecution or any legal proceedings. Any secured creditor would not instigate his debtor to commit suicide as his only interest is in recovery of his debt. 12. In "Priyanka Srivastava & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors." (Supra) proceedings were initiated against the secured creditor under Section 467 & 471 of IPC. The Apex Court held that Magistrate should have kept in mind the legislative mandate which bars initiation of any suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings against the secured creditors. 13. In "Rajesh vs. State of Haryana AIR 2019 SC 478 ". The Apex Court held that Magistrate should have kept in mind the legislative mandate which bars initiation of any suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings against the secured creditors. 13. In "Rajesh vs. State of Haryana AIR 2019 SC 478 ". (Supra), the Apex Court has held that in order to direct the case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC, the person who had abated the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate commission of suicide. 14. The act done by the bank employees in this case was done in good faith in recovery of their due. They had to make the account N.P.A. as per the guidelines of the bank and have proceeded under the SARFAESI Act and there is no averment in the suicide note that the bank officers instigated or abated commission of suicide. There being a specific bar under the SARFAESI act and there being no material in the suicide note with regard to any averment or instigation, continuation of proceedings against the employees of the bank who are secured creditors would tantamount to abuse of process of the Court and would result in grave injustice, hence misc. petition seeking quashing of FIR qua the bank employees is allowed. FIR No. 97/2019, registered at Police Station Vidyadhar Nagar, District Jaipur City (North) qua the bank employees is quashed. 15. As far as Criminal Misc. Petition seeking fair investigation is concerned, in view of the Judgment of "Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 2008 SC Page 907", petition is disposed with a condition that petitioner would be free to approach the concerned Magistrate to enquire about the progress of the investigation. 16. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.