Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

1. Heard Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Kumari Rashmi, learned counsel for the State.

2. Notice upon opposite party no. 2 has already been effected. On 10.08.2022, this matter was adjourned with a view to provide one more opportunity to opposite party no. 2.

3. Today, on repeated calls nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no. 2. It appears that opposite party no. 2 has lost interest to contest this case. Accordingly, the matter has been heard on merit in absence of opposite party no. 2.

4. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 2403/2017 as well as the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioners have been summoned, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

5. The complaint case has been filed by opposite party no. 2 alleging therein on 30.07.2016 at about 03:00 P.M., all the accused/petitioners entered into the house of the complainant, threw all the household articles and accused J.P. Sharma, Chief Manager, took out cash Rs. 2,25,000/- from the Godrej Almirah and Alok Kumar, Junior Manager took away gold and silver ornaments worth Rs. 2,00,000/-. It has been further alleged that all the accused persons hurled abuses and also assaulted the complainant and her mother. It has also been alleged that the accused persons also used criminal force to the complainant and her mother with intent to outrage her modesty and they also threatened to implicate them in false case if they will not withdraw the earlier case filed against them.

6. Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier the case was investigated by the police and charge-sheet has been submitted whereby the petitioners have not been sent up for trial. She further submits that on the protest petition the learned court has taken cognizance. According to her, the cognizance order is also non-speaking order and no reason has been assigned in the cognizance order as to why the learned court has differed with the final form and has taken the cognizance. She also submits that even what are the prima facie materials against the petitioners, have not been disclosed in the cognizance order. She further submits that the father and mother of the complainant had taken loan from the Bank in question and the petitioners are the employees of the Bank and petitioner no. 1 has retired. She further submits that demand notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 has been issued and possession of the property was taken over pursuant to the order of the learned Magistrate and, thereafter, this complaint case has been filed. On these grounds, she submits that this case is filed maliciously and it amounts to abuse of process of law.

7. Ms. Kumari Rashmi, learned counsel for the State fairly accepts that the police has investigated the case and final form has been submitted. She submits that on protest petition, the learned court has taken cognizance.

8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that admittedly the final form was submitted by which the petitioners were not sent up for trial. It appears that Hira Lal Sah and Kusum Devi, father and mother of the opposite party no. 2 had taken a loan under credit facilities amounting to Rs. 6 Lakhs as cash credit facility on 10.11.2006 and they have failed to repay the loan amount in spite of several request of the Bank and therefore demand notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act was issued and thereafter steps were taken for taking possession of the mortgaged property and that was taken in presence of the concerned District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Looking to Section 32 of SARFAESI Act, it appears that bank officials are protected under that Act if they acted in good faith in discharging official duty. It appears from Annexure-3 that opposite party no. 2 has also implicated the bank officials maliciously in C.P. Case No. 1827/2013. It appears that this petition has been filed maliciously which is also fortified in view of the fact that in spite of opportunity provided to opposite party no. 2, she has chosen not to appear before this Court. Moreover looking to the cognizance order, it transpires that the learned court has not disclosed any reason why protest petition is being accepted by the learned court. What are the prima facie materials brought on record by way of filing the protest petition, are also not disclosed in the cognizance order. It appears that this is a case of malicious prosecution and it has been brought by filing as a counter blast case. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor;  (2013) 3 SCC 330].

9. Paragraph 30 of the said judgment reads as under:

"30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:

30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality

30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false

30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant

30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice

30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused."

10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 2403/2017 as well as the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad is, hereby, quashed.

11. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.

12. Interim order dated 06.11.2019 stands vacated.