DEEPAK NARANG Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order of mine shall dispose of the two Criminal Misc. No. 8850-M of 2004 and Criminal Misc. No. 8486-M of 2004, which have arisen out of the order dated 12.5.2003 (Annexure P-7) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula. In both the complaints, the facts are similar, so the facts have been taken from Criminal Misc. No. 8850-M of 2004.

(2.) IN brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner(s) was earlier posted as Assistant General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Regional Office, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh whereas Shri R.K. Sood was posted as Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank, Regional Office, Parliament Street, New Delhi and both are the permanent employees/officers of the Bank which is a Nationalized Bank, a Government of India undertaking, thus public servants. It is alleged that the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Securitization Act, 2002), came into existence for speedy recovery of loans/debts which have become non-performing assets. The Rules were enacted under the Securitization Act, called The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. As per Rule 2(a) of the Rules, 2002, an authorized officer means an officer not less than a Chief Manager of a Public Sector Bank who can exercise rights of a Secured Creditor and could act and conduct the proceedings as an Authorized Officer against the Borrowers/Defaulters of the Bank. It is alleged that the petitioner Deepak Narang was holding the post of Assistant General Manager in the Bank and was the Regional Head of Regional Office, Chandigarh as such was declared as an Authorized Officer of the Allahabad Bank under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Rules. Circular regarding authorized Officer and the steps to be taken for exercising the powers under the Securitization Act, 2002 was issued by the Bank on 12.11.2002. M/s. Raju Flour Mills was the defaulter of the Bank pertaining to loan facilities availed of from the Bank. The account of the said firm became non-performing Assets and as such a demand notice was required to be issued for payment of the outstanding debt in terms of Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act, 2002 to the Borrowers which included the Firm, Partners of the Firm and the Guarantors. The moveable and immovable properties were hypothecated and mortgaged with the Bank as such the Allahabad Bank was a Secured Creditor and entitled to recover the amount by sale of the same in case the amount is not paid within a period of 60 days from the date of notice as per provisions of the Act. The petitioner(s) exercising the powers of an authorized officer under the Act, 2002 issued Demand Notices dated 12.2.2003 under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 to the borrowers i.e. M/s. Raju Flour Mills, 243, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, Rajeev Sharma son of Shri J.P. Sharma, House No. 1043, Sector 2, Panchkula, Shri Sanjeev Sharma son of Shri Harbilas, resident of House No. 80, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh and Smt. Parkasho Devi wife of Siri Ram, Daya Nagar, Opposite New Mandi, Taraori, District Karnal to repay the amount of Rs. 7,06,275/- within a period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the notice, which were received bank un-served. The notices issued by the petitioner(s) under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act, 2002 dated 12.2.2003 to the borrowers/defaulters i.e. Rajeev Sharma son of Shri J.P. Sharma, House No. 1043, Sector 2, Panchkula, Shri Sanjeev Sharma, son of Shri J.P. Sharma, House No. 1043, Sector 2, Panchkula, Shri Harbilas son of Shri Ruli Ram, House No. 80, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh, Shri Padam Bhushan son of Shri J.P. Sharma, House No. 1043, Sector 2, Panchkula, Padam Bhushan son of Shri Harbilas, House No. 80, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh, Smt. Parkasho Devi wife of Siri Ram, Daya Nagar, Opposite New Mandi, Taraori District Karnal, M/s. Raju Flour Mills, 243, Industrial Area, Chandigarh were served except Shri Harbilas Jindal and Shri Padam Bhushan which were received back un-served. Since the notice dated 12.2.2003 (Annexure P-2) could not be served upon Harbilas Jindal and Shri Padam Bhushan, defaulters, through registered A.D. Post, and the same were received back un-served from the addresses mentioned therein, the notice were sent on the earlier addresses available as per the Bank record on which they were not served. Thus the notices were to be served upon the borrowers at the place where they were residing on the new addresses. Information in this regard vide letter dated 24.4.2003 (Annexure P-3) regarding delivery of the notice to the defaulter at his resident i.e. House No. 35, Sector 16, Panchkula was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Panchkula with a request that police personnel may be deputed on 27.4.2003 at 11 a.m. So that the notices could be delivered, and that the friends and the relatives of the borrowers may not involve the petitioner(s) or any other officer/official of the Bank in any false case.

(3.) THAT the borrowers/defaulters as well as their other associates threatened the petitioner(s) and others to involve them in a false case since their reputation has been damaged in the locality by the Bank Officers by affixing the notice of defaulter of the Bank on their house. The respondent No. 2 along with Smt. Roshani Devi wife of Harbilas Jindal, Shri Suresh Jindal and Shri Vinod Jindal sons of Shri Harbilas Jindal issued a Legal Notice dated 10.5.2003 through Shri A.P. Manchanda, Advocate for payment of Rs. 50 lacs as damages pertaining to the alleged incident as mentioned in the complaint. A reply to the said notice was given through Shri Ram Chander, Advocate on 25.5.2003 on behalf of the bank. In order to further harass and humiliate the petitioner(s), Shri R.K. Sood and other officers of the Allahabad Bank respondent No. 2 filed a false criminal complaint dated 1.5.2003 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panchkula under Sections 166, 167, 355, 448, 452, 500, 504, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The copy of the complaint is attached as Annexure P-5. Some evidence was recorded of respondent No. 2, being complainant, and Shri Rajesh Gupta on 1.5.2003 and thereafter the evidence was closed. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No. 2, being complainant, and Shri Rajesh Gupta on 1.5.2003 and thereafter the evidence was closed. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No. 2 filed a list of witnesses of as many as 24 witnesses along with complaint and only examined himself and another person in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The petitioner and Shri R.K. Sood were ordered to be summoned by the Court of Shri P.K. Yadav, Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula vide order dated 12.5.2003 under Sections 452/500/506/148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and they were ordered to be summoned for 12.9.2003, the copy of the order is Annexure P-7. It is further alleged that the notices/summons of appearance were issued in terms of the order P-7 and after the receipt of the summons of appearance in person or through attorney, appearance was made through their counsel. The petitioner(s) being Authorized Officer of the Bank requested the Senior Superintendent of Police, Panchkula vide letter Annexure P-3 to provide police help for effecting service on the defaulters at their place of residence.