JUDGMENT : SANDEEP KUMAR, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the First Information Report bearing Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No. 466 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution case, the informant namely, Arvind Kumar Chaudhary has taken a loan of Rs.40,00,000/-from the Punjab National Bank, Branch-New Market, Patna but, the Bank without proper communication and without following due process, made an auction of the house of the informant. It has also been alleged that the informant made an application before the D.R.T., Patna but despite their being several order, the Bank has not submitted the documents. It has also been alleged that the bank has claimed the possession of the property in question but the real fact is that the mother of the informant and other tenants are living for last 10-15 years in the large area of the property. It has also been alleged that the auction purchaser i.e. petitioner through staff and unknown persons used to threaten the mother and other tenants of the informant on phone. On enquiry from the tenants, he was informed that Sanjay Yadav and Kunal, employees of the petitioner, used to come and force them to open the door at night and the petitioner has instructed them to disturb the tenants so that they are forced to leave the place. It has also been alleged that there was a rent agreement between the informant and Dr. Ajit Singh for a large part of the property, in question but, said Dr. Ajit Singh and present petitioner in connivance with the bank officials are trying to grab the house of the informant. The informant suspected the hand of the bank Manager P.K. Singh in this regard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 2 has taken a loan from the Punjab National Bank and he has defaulted in repayment of the loan and accordingly, the proceeding under the SARFAESI Act was initiated against the informant. Thereafter, the Bank put the property of the informant on auction and in this regard, the Bank has also published an advertisement dated 09.03.2018 for the auction of the said property and when the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid auction sale, she took part in the said auction and became the successful bidder in public auction. Thereafter, the Bank put the property of the informant on auction and in this regard, the Bank has also published an advertisement dated 09.03.2018 for the auction of the said property and when the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid auction sale, she took part in the said auction and became the successful bidder in public auction. He further submits that as per the instructions of the Bank, the petitioner deposited the full amount of auction with the Bank and after following the necessary procedure, the Bank issued Sale Certificate in favour of the petitioner and handed over the possession of a part of the property to her and since then the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the said property. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the mother of the informant was residing in other portion of the said property and on the request of the Bank and the informant, the parties agreed to allow the mother of the informant to stay for some time. He also submits that informant has preferred an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna against the actions and measures taken by the Bank with respect to the said property. In the said proceeding, the petitioner was also made a party and the informant has filed an application for interim stay but the Tribunal vide order dated 23.07.2018 dismissed the said application. After being unsuccessful in getting stay on the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the informant along with his accomplices forcefully tried to dispossess the petitioner from the said property which has been purchased by her in a public auction. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a bonafide auction purchaser and has nothing to do with the transactions between the informant and the Bank. In view of the advertisement, the petitioner took part in the public auction and in the said auction she was declared successful. He further submits that the informant has already invoked his right against the action of the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and hence, lodging of the F.I.R. is completely illegal in the facts of the case. The informant has lodged this F.I.R. with sole motive to pressurize the bank officials as well as the petitioner. 6. He further submits that the informant has already invoked his right against the action of the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and hence, lodging of the F.I.R. is completely illegal in the facts of the case. The informant has lodged this F.I.R. with sole motive to pressurize the bank officials as well as the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the informant is indisputably a borrower of the Bank and the transaction between the informant and the Bank is purely commercial in nature. He further submits that the informant himself is a defaulter and he has already invoked the statutory right under the SARFAESI Act, which has been decided by the Tribunal against him. He also submits that the SARFAESI Act is a complete Code in itself which provides the procedure to be followed by the secured creditor and also the remedy to the aggrieved parties including the borrower and if the investigation of the present F.I.R is allowed to be continued it will be abuse of the process of the Court. 7. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed this quashing application. 8. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record including the F.I.R. From the facts enumerated above, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a bonafide auction purchaser of a property mortgaged by the informant with the Bank while taking loan. The informant, who is the borrower, has filed the present F.I.R. against the petitioner, her husband, the bank Manager and others in order to wreak vengeance. Further, the transaction between the informant and the Bank is purely commercial in nature. The informant himself is a defaulter and he has already invoked the statutory right under the SARFAESI Act, which has been decided by the Tribunal against him. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. AIR 1992 604 has held in paragraph no. 102 as under: “102. The informant himself is a defaulter and he has already invoked the statutory right under the SARFAESI Act, which has been decided by the Tribunal against him. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. AIR 1992 604 has held in paragraph no. 102 as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter 14 and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such a power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case again the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, AIR 1992 SC 1815 has held that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance. 11. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra) and Surendra Prasad Sinha (supra), I am of the view that this kind of malicious prosecution at the instance of the borrower, who has lost his property in an auction sale to the petitioner, should not be allowed to continue. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this application is allowed. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this application is allowed. Accordingly, the F.I.R. vide Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No. 466 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are hereby quashed with respect to all the accused persons including the present petitioner, as this Court has found that the present F.I.R. is a malicious one filed by the informant (borrower) against the petitioner, who is the auction purchaser and her husband, employees as well as the bank manager.