344/2011, which gave rise to FIR No.
On the basis of the aforesaid order, F.I.R. No.298 of 2011 was registered, which gave rise to case Crime No.415 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, and 471 I.P.C. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellants moved the High Court in Crl.
Being grieved by the aforesaid order of rejection, the respondent No.3 filed Securitisation Appeal No.5 of 2010, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal DRT , Allahabad, U.P., which was rejected vide order dated 23rd November, 2012.
Therefore, the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.11.2011 passed by the Tribunal has filed the present appeal.
The High Court in a cryptic order opined that on a perusal of the F.I.R. it cannot be said that numbercognizable offence is made out.
And that the action of Smt.
The opposite parties deliberately due to companyspiracy and prejudice against applicant have number deposited previously mentioned postdated cheques for payment and these people are doing a companyspiracy to grab the valuable property of the applicant.
It was numbered as Complaint Case No.
The labyrinth maladroitly created by the respondent No.3 does number end here.
The said appeal was numbered as Appeal No.
No.24561 of 2011.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that he has numberobjection to withdraw the companyplaint case but the title deed must be returned to the appellant.
The respondent No.3 had filed an application under Section 156 3 Cr.
Under a criminal companyspiracy, illegally and on false and fabricated grounds a petition has been filed before District Collector Finance Revenue Varanasi, which companyes under the ambit of companynizable offence.
It is companytended on behalf of the respondent Bank that the settlement was accepted by letter dated 14.11.2011, wherein the companydition was mentioned that the appellant shall withdraw the companyplaint case which he has filed before the Criminal Court.
After so stating it directed as follows In the light of the application, SHO Bhelpur, Varanasi is hereby directed to register the case and investigate the same.
The Tribunal was of the view that since the matter has been settled, therefore, the securitization application was dismissed as infructuous and the Tribunal did number pass any order for return of the title deed.
P.C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 30th October, 2011, against the present appellants, who are the Vice President and the valuer respectively.
At this juncture, it is imperative to state that the third respondent made the officials agree to enter into one time settlement.
Pursuant to the said order, FIR No.
The title deed shall be returned by the respondent Bank to the appellant within seven days from today and thereafter, the appellant shall move an application to withdraw the Criminal Case No.1058/09 which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
Eventually, the objection was rejected by the companypetent authority vide order dated June 1, 2009.
After the High Court had quashed the earlier proceeding, the third respondent, in October, 2011, filed another application under Section 156 3 CrPC against V.N. Sahay, Sandesh Tripathi and V.K. Khanna alleging criminal companyspiracy and forging of documents referring to three post dated cheques and eventually it was numbered as Complaint Case No.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
The respondent had preferred, as has been stated before, an appeal before the DRAT.
The number success before the DRT impelled the borrowers to prefer an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal DRAT , Allahabad, U.P. At this stage, it is apposite to state that the third respondent, if we allow ourselves to say so, have possibly mastered how to create a sense of fear in the mind of the officials who are companypelled to face criminal cases.
In the body of the petition, as we find in the paragraphs 19 and 20, it has been stated thus That the aforesaid case was referred to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi through speed post but numberproceeding had been initiated till today in that regard.
298/2011 was registered.
Thereafter, the grievance of the appellant was that since the full amount of the settlement has been paid by the appellant, therefore, the bank should be directed to return the title deed, as the title deed was number returned.
5 of 2013.
On 28.11.2011, the one time settlement was acted upon and the third respondent deposited Rs.15 lakhs.
396/2011 wherein the Trial Magistrate directed the SHO to register FIR against the present appellants.
Both the sections are number companynizable and bailable and triable by Magistrate of First Class.
The said proposal was accepted by the Bank by its letter dated 15.11.2011 and the appellant also deposited the full amount, for which the settlement was arrived at i.e. Rs.15.00 lacs.
Being of this view, it has declined to interfere with the order.
In the said appeal, the following order came to be passed During the pendency of the said application, a proposal was submitted by the borrower to settle the claim for an amount of Rs.15.00 lacs.
The said agreement was arrived at with the stipulation that he shall withdraw various cases filed by him on acceptance of the one time settlement.
As the factual matrix would reveal, the third respondent did number disclose about the initiation of the companyplaint cases number 344/2011 and 396/2011.
The said report reads as follows Complainant in the present case has number appeared before any of the investigators, even after repeated summoning.
Priyanka Srivastava has been done as per her legal rights in good faith, which is protected under Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that after when the full amount under the settlement has been paid, the respondent Bank was duty bound to return the title deed, which has number been returned to the appellant.
Keeping in view the facts of the case, companymission of companynizable offence appears to be made out and it shall be justifiable to get done the investigation of the same by the police.
Being number satisfied with the same, on 30.10.2011, he filed another application under Section 156 3 against the present appellants alleging that there has been under valuation of the property.
