INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the order dtd. 29/4/2023, passed by learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No.38 of 2023, CNR No.UKDD01-000830-2023, whereby learned revisional court dismissed the revision of the applicant and affirmed the order passed by learned IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun and to quash the order dtd. 23/4/2022, qua, the applicant passed by learned IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Complaint Case No.858 of 2020, whereby the applicant was summoned under Sec. 120-B, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC in the aforesaid complaint case.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that the applicant - Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited - (hereinafter referred to as "Company") is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a secured creditor as defined under Sec. 2(zd) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In the year 2016, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 namely - Elkana Nissim Ezekeil and Molshri Kholi Ezekeil - approached the Company for a loan under a subvention scheme to purchase Unit No.604 in Dehradun and provided documentation with the assurance to make timely payments. Relying upon the documents submitted by the respondents, the applicant sanctioned loan and disbursed it in their favour. After disbursal of loan, the applicant intimated the respondents to pay the loan installments, to which they denied and filed various complaints against the applicant before various courts. Respondents filed a civil suit before learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun for restraining the applicant from debiting installments towards the loan account, wherein the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun dismissed the said suit. Thereafter, demand notices were sent on mail of the respondents and their loan account was declared as N.P.A.

(3.) It is argued on behalf of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant-Company does not come under the jurisdiction of the court, therefore, it was incumbent upon the court to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Sec. 202 of Cr.P.C. It is also pertinent to mention that on one hand, the respondents are claiming the loan availed by them is under subvention scheme, in which, the builder is liable to pay loan installments to the revisionist/lender and on the other hand the respondents/loanee are also denying the fact of their signature in the tripartite agreement. Hence, the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.