ORDER : Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- "to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in C.C.No.1033 of 2015 from the file of the Hon'ble II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, West Godavari District and to quash the Order dated 01.07.2015 as illegal and void and to pass such other order or orders……." 2. The precise case of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent filed a complaint dated 07.05.2005 vide S.R.No.5398 of 2012 before the 1st respondent against the petitioners alleging the commission of offence under Section 500 read with Section 34 of IPC, stating that the authorized officer of the Bank of Maharashtra, Sultan Branch published a Demand Notice dated 05.10.2011 under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (in short 'SARFAESI Act)with regard to the property bearing D.No.22-5-20 near RTC Bus Stand, Narasimharaopet, Eluru for recovery of debt due from the 3rd respondent company. The 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 01.07.2015 that the record prima facie discloses offence against the A1 to A11 for the offence under Section 500 read with 34 IPC. Hence case is taken on file against them and issued summon to them, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. Heard Mr. C. Subhodh, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Ms. Amulya, learned counsel, representing Mr. G. Ronald Raju, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent appeared virtually. 4. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. Heard Mr. C. Subhodh, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Ms. Amulya, learned counsel, representing Mr. G. Ronald Raju, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent appeared virtually. 4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contents urged in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the Bank of Maharashtra, Sultan Bazar Branch, Hyderabad, proceeded to recover the debt in good faith after following due procedures laid down under Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act prohibits the prosecution of the petitioners or its officers for the action taken in respect of recovery the debt under the Act and reiterated the Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, which reproduced hereunder: "Section 32 :- No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any secured creditor or any of his officers or Manager exercising any of the rights of the secured or borrower for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith under this Act." 5. Therefore, the action of the respondents in proceeding with the prosecution of the petitioners in C.C.No.1033 of 2015 is nothing but arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 191(g) of the Constitution of India. 6. Per contra, the 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit, denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that this respondent is not a borrower and he never incurred any debt due to the bank and he never committed any default. There is no financial asset and his property never comes under the category of NPA and same is not a secured asset and the bank is not a secured creditor to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent never entered into any security agreement with the petitioners' bank. The petitioners are responsible for the commissions and omissions committed by the Bank of Maharashtra and its employees, as all the transactions of the Bank of Maharashtra or directly under the control of the petitioners. The 2nd respondent never entered into any security agreement with the petitioners' bank. The petitioners are responsible for the commissions and omissions committed by the Bank of Maharashtra and its employees, as all the transactions of the Bank of Maharashtra or directly under the control of the petitioners. The petitioners in furtherance of their common intention and criminal conspiracy to defame the 2nd respondent in the eye of public and published a demand notice on 19.10.2011 in Andhra Jyothi Telugu News Paper through the 1st petitioner by invoking the provisions of SARFAESI Act, wherein the property of the 2nd respondent shown i.e 8073 Sq.ft., in T.S.No.57, Ward No.3, bearing D.No.22-5-20, near RTC Bus Stand, Narasimharaopet, Eluru along with the Apartment under construction and flats therein etc., as under the charge to the Bank of the petitioners for the loan borrowed by M/s. Trinethra Infra Ventures Ltd., Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent got issued legal notice dated 03.12.2011 to the petitioners 1 to 3 calling upon them to pay damages of Rs. 25 Crores. On account of malicious and intentional act of the petitioner, the reputation of the 2nd petitioner has been badly damaged. As effective alternative remedies are available to the petitioners, they can avail the same instead of filing this writ petition. Therefore, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the records. 8. During hearing learned counsel for the 2nd respondent drawn the attention of this Court with regard to Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act, which defines borrower, debt, default, financial asset, non performing asset, security agreement, secured asset, secured creditor, secured debt and security interest etc., and also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Central Counsel for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another v. Bikartan Das and Others" 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 692 : 2023 INSC 733 , wherein it was held as follows: "52. The essential features of a writ of certiorari, including a brief history, have been very exhaustively explained by B.K.Muherjea, J in T.C.Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Another, reported in 1954:INSC:58 : AIR 1954 SC 440 . The Court held that a writ in the nature of certiorari could be issued in 'all appropriate cases and in appropriate manner' so long as the broad and fundamental principles were kept in mind. Those principles were delineated as follows: 7. The Court held that a writ in the nature of certiorari could be issued in 'all appropriate cases and in appropriate manner' so long as the broad and fundamental principles were kept in mind. Those principles were delineated as follows: 7. ....In granting a writ of certiorari', the superior court does not exercise the powers of an appellate tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous, but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal..... 8. The supervision of the superior court exercised through writs of certiorari goes on two points, as he has expressed by Lord Summer in King v. Nat Bell Liquors Limited [(1922) 2 AC 128, 156]. One is the area of inferior jurisdiction and the qualifications and conditions of its exercise; the other is the observance of law in the course of its exercise. " ... 53. Relying on T.C.Basappa (Supra), the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra), laid down the following propositions as well established: "(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the court or tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous". He further relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others" 1998:INSC:400 : (1998) 8 SCC 1 , wherein it was held as follows:- "15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the filed." So also, in "Suraya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Others" 2003:INSC:374 : (2003) 6 SCC 675 , wherein the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the seven Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmed Ishaque" AIR 1955 SC 233 : (1955) 1 SCR 1104 . Therefore, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent vehemently argued that the Certiorari will be issued only for correcting the errors of the jurisdiction. Further the court issuing a writ of Certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous as laid down by the Supreme Court in the Harivishnu Kamath's case (supra). Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. 9. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous as laid down by the Supreme Court in the Harivishnu Kamath's case (supra). Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. 9. A perusal of the reply notice issued by the Assistant General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, through their counsel dated 10.02.2012 to the counsel for the 2nd respondent would show that at Para 2 of the reply it was stated as follows: 2) My client hereby reiterates that referring of the above said property in SARFAESI Notice is purely unintentional and a bonafide mistake which crept in the records and my Client also stopped the proceedings against the said property without there being any further reference from your Client and acted bonafidely. My Client is under impression that the matter has been settled between your Client and M/s. Trinethra Infra Ventures Limited. Once again, my Client regret about the inclusion of the said property in the Demand Notice and rendering sincere apologies through this Reply for the unpleasant situation and for the inconvenience caused to your Client. My Client hereby assures that there will not be any further proceedings on the said property". 10. The 2nd respondent also issued rejoinder notice dated 18.02.2012 to the counsel for the petitioners and made reference therein. Wherein, it is clear that the borrower i.e 3rd respondent herein and its officials intentionally and wilfully committed a deliberate fraud and cheating by not only misrepresenting facts, but also producing fake documents to the bank to borrow loan by showing the property of the 2nd respondent herein and publication of notice in the news paper is bad. In view of such publication the reputation of the 2nd respondent got damaged and hence claimed Rs. 25 Crores from the petitioners for damages. Thereupon, a case has been filed by the 2nd respondent in C.C.No.1033 of 2015 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru against the petitioners herein. 11. In view of such publication the reputation of the 2nd respondent got damaged and hence claimed Rs. 25 Crores from the petitioners for damages. Thereupon, a case has been filed by the 2nd respondent in C.C.No.1033 of 2015 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru against the petitioners herein. 11. It is an admitted fact as per reply notice dated 10.02.2012 that the petitioners tendered apologies and assured that they stopped further proceedings against the said property, which shows that the petitioners have mistakenly crept the property in the publication made in the news paper, thereby the 2nd respondent got damaged his reputation in the public as contended by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 12. Therefore, the 2nd respondent claiming damages from the petitioners by way of separate case vide C.C.No.1033 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, which is pending. In general, no bank employee can take personal revenge or grudge against the borrowers, but they are abiding and following the guidelines as per Banking Rules and law, while proceeding against the defaulters. Therefore, mistakenly or inadvertently, the property of the 2nd respondent has shown in the publication, but the same was detached, after noticing the mistake committed by them and tendered apology by way of reply notice. Therefore, such issue cannot be seen in different way, rather than factual aspect. It is apparent that the petitioners have no malafide intention to defame the 2nd petitioner in the eye of public. Moreover, as could be seen from the writ affidavit, the petitioners dealt the issue under provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Therefore, this Court finds that it is purely a bonafide mistake and the petitioners are also released the property after noticing the mistake and expressed their apology. Further, as per Section 32 of SARFAESI Act 2002 no legal proceedings shall lie against the petitioners for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith under the said Act. Hence, it is very specific that as per Section 32 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 no prosecution can be conducted against the petitioners. Therefore, it is a fit case to quash the order dated 01.07.2015 and declared the same as illegal and arbitrary. The interim order granted by this Court shall stands vacated. 13. Hence, it is very specific that as per Section 32 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 no prosecution can be conducted against the petitioners. Therefore, it is a fit case to quash the order dated 01.07.2015 and declared the same as illegal and arbitrary. The interim order granted by this Court shall stands vacated. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, while quashing the order dated 01.07.2015. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.