You are on page 1of 34
 
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.781 OF 2012
Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and AnotherAppellantsVersusState of U.P. and Others Respondents
J U D G M E N TDipak Misra, J.
  The present appeal projects and frescoes a scenariowhich is not only disturbing but also has the potentiality to create a stir compelling one to ponder in a perturbedstate how some unscrupulous, unprincipled and deviantlitigants can ingeniously and innovatively design in anonchalant manner to knock at the doors of the Court, asif, it is a laboratory where multifarious experiments cantake place and such skillful persons can adroitly abusethe process of the Court at their own will and desire by 
 
CRL.A.781/12
painting a canvas of agony by assiduous assertions madein the application though the real intention is to harassthe statutory authorities, without any remote remorse,with the inventive design primarily to create a mentalpressure on the said officials as individuals, for they would not like to be dragged to a court of law to face incriminal cases, and further pressurize in such a fashionso that financial institution which they represent wouldultimately be constrained to accept the request forone-time settlementwith the fond hope that theobstinate defaulters who had borrowed money from itwould withdraw the cases instituted against them. Thefacts, as we proceed to adumbrate, would graphicallreveal how such persons, pretentiously aggrieved butpotentially dangerous, adopt the self-convincing mastery methods to achieve so. That is the sad and unfortunatefactual score forming the fulcrum of the case at hand,and, we painfully recount. 2.The facts which need to be stated are that therespondent No.3, namely, Prakash Kumar Bajaj, son of Pradeep Kumar Bajaj, had availed a housing loan from
2
 
CRL.A.781/12
the financial institution, namely, Punjab National BankHousing Finance Limited (PNBHFL) on 21
st
 January,2001,
vide 
 housing loan account No.IHL-583. The loanwas taken in the name of the respondent No.3 and hiswife, namely, Jyotsana Bajaj. As there was default inconsecutive payment of the installments, the loan accountwas treated as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) inaccordance with the guidelines framed by the ReserveBank of India. The authorities of the financial institutionissued notice to the borrowers under Section 13(2) of theSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets andEnforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short, 'theSARFAESI Act') and in pursuance of the proceedingsundertaken in the said Act, the PNBHFL, on 5
th
 June,2007, submitted an application before the DistrictMagistrate, Varanasi, U.P. for taking appropriate actionunder Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. 3.At this juncture, the respondent No.3 preferred W.P.No.44482 of 2007, which was dismissed by the HighCourt on 14
th
 September, 2007, with the observation thatit was open to the petitioner therein to file requisite
3

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505