Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. He submitted that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the learned DRT has already decided the matter in favour of the petitioner bank and the subject property stands sold by way of auction proceedings.

9. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/ Legal Representatives of the respondent vehemently opposed the present petition. She clarified that the respondent has not challenged the alleged forgery or fabrication of documents before the learned Magistrate and instead have invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 340 of the CrPC, solely on the ground that the petitioner bank has deliberately made a false statement before the learned Magistrate by misrepresenting itself as a secured creditor.

"23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words "court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice". This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice.It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded."

32. As far as the allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner bank regarding forgery of the aforesaid documents, creating an equitable mortgage against the subject property are concerned, it is pertinent to note that the respondent never made any allegations of forgery of the said documents before the learned DRT. The petitioner bank had filed an O.A. for recovery against the respondent and his companies in the year of 1996 and both letters were filed by the petitioner bank before the learned DRT in order to establish its claims. The respondent never made any allegations regarding fabrication of the said documents before the learned DRT.

34. The allegations regarding forgery of the documents filed by the petitioner before the learned DRT were only made after an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act filed by the petitioner bank before the learned Magistrate was allowed.

35. It is relevant to note that it has been submitted that the O.A for recovery filed by the petitioner bank against the respondent before the learned DRT has been decided in favour of the petitioner bank and the subject property has been auctioned off. Although, the legal representatives of the deceased respondent have filed an appeal before the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal which is still pending.