M A RASHID Vs. GOPAL CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is accused under section 448/ 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Vide these petitions, the petitioner prays for quashing of the complaint No. 2052/2006 as also the summoning order dated 1.10.2008 of M.M. and order dated 28.1.2009 of the learned ASJ.

(2.) The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Chief Manager of Corporation Bank. This bank had advanced a housing loan of Rs.5 lac to Mrs. & Mr. M.S. Sidhu for purchase of a flat. The borrowers as a security for the loan had deposited the title deeds of the said flat by way of equitable mortgage. As they failed to repay the loan, the account of Mr. M.S. Sidhu was declared NPA on 6.3.2004, whereupon a notice under Section 13(2) and 13(13) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the 'SARFAESI Act') was served upon them as also the respondent no.1/complainant Mr. Gopal Chandra who was the guarantor of the borrowers. Since the loan was not repaid, a notice under Section 13(2) and 13(13) of the SARFAESI was published in newspapers on 3.12.2006. The petitioner, being the authorized officer of the bank, took possession of the said flat on 10.1.2006 through their authorized agents. It is averred that before taking possession of the said flat, an intimation was also given to Police Station Seema Puri. The possession of the flat was taken after preparing an inventory and panchnama, copies of which were delivered to the SHO of concerned Police Station.

(3.) The complainant/respondent no.1 addressed a letter dated 16.3.2006 to the Deputy General Manager of the bank requesting him to give time of 15 months to repay the loan and to return the possession of the flat. In the said letter, it was alleged that the possession had been taken illegally by the bank officials. The said letter was replied by the bank denying all the allegations. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 31.3.2006 alleging that during taking over the possession of the aforesaid flat by the bank officials, he and his family members were threatened of dire consequences, if they interfered in taking of possession. It was alleged that the said possession was illegal, amounting to criminal trespass. It was also alleged that the petitioner knew that he (complainant/ respondent) is a Scheduled Caste and despite knowing so, he hurled casteist remarks against him and his family. The facts further revealed that an application dated 27.5.2006 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was filed before Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) seeking various reliefs including possession of the said flat. The said application came to be dismissed by DRT vide its order dated 23.4.2008. On 19.4.2006, the complainant/respondent no.1 filed a criminal complaint under Sections 448 and 506 IPC before the Court of MM, who after recording presummoning evidence, ordered for issuance of summons against the petitioner under Sections 448,506 IPC. The petitioner challenged the said order vide Crl. M.C. 3866 of 2008, in which vide order dated 10.12.2008, the petitioner was granted exemption from personal appearance before the Court of MM. In the meantime, the complainant/respondent no.1 also preferred a revision petition against the summoning order of learned MM which came to be heard and disposed of by learned ASJ, who vide his impugned order dated 28.1.2009 also ordered for issuance of summons against the petitioner under Section 3 (1) (v) of the Act. The instant petition is filed for quashing of complaint pending in the court of MM under Section 448, 506 IPC and under Section 3 (1) (v) of SC/ST Act.