Bajaj Housing Finance vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54054
1 WP-26533-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
th
ON THE 14 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 26533 of 2026
BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Khatri - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Alok Agnihotri - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.
2 & 3 to register FIR forthwith on the basis of the
petitioner’s complaint dated 17.04.2026.
ii. Direct Respondents No. 2 and 3 to conduct a fair,
impartial and time-bound investigation into the criminal
acts committed by the borrower.
ii. Issue a further writ/direction commanding the police
authorities to forthwith restore peaceful and vacant
physical possession of the secured asset to the petitioner
bank, in terms of the order dated 24.03.2026 passed by
the CJM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
iv. Direct the respondents to provide continuous police
protection to the secured asset till completion of
SARFAESI proceedings.
v. Pass any other order(s) as may be deemed fit and
proper in the interest of justice."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is a financial Company
defined under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The present petition is being filed
through Power of Attorney holder authorizing the petitioner to file this
petition. The petitioner sanctioned a loan facility to the borrower Mr. Gyan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
17:19:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54054
2 WP-26533-2026
Singh and others against mortgage of secured asset situated at HN 48, Gram

Panchayat Aroliya, Ward No.5, PHN 16, Tehsil Jawer, District Sehore
(M.P.). On account of persistent default, the loan account was declared NPA.
Petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore and vide order dated 24/03/2026, the CJM
allowed the application and directed for taking physical possession of
secured asset. In compliance of the said order, physical possession of the
property was taken on 13/04/2026 by the revenue Authorities and was
handed over to the petitioner. A Panchnama to the aforesaid effect was
prepared and is filed as an Annexure-P/3. Thereafter, the borrower illegally
using muscle power behind the back of the petitioner, broke open the locks
and trespassed into the secured asset committing serious criminal offences
including criminal trespass, mischief, theft of possession, disobedience of
lawful authority etc. A written complaint was made to respondent No.3/
Station House Officer, Thana Jawer, District Sehore on 17/04/2026 narrating
the entire incident and seeking registration of FIR and for restoration of
possession. Despite information regarding cognizable offence, no FIR has
been registered. No investigation was carried out by the Authorities. The
Police Authorities have failed to discharge their statutory duty under Section
154 of Cr.P.C. resulting into frustration of SARFAESI proceedings and also
violation of right to property of the petitioner and fair investigation.
3. It is argued that in identical circumstances, a Division Bench of this
Court at Gwalior has dealt with the issue in the case of Cholamandalam
Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Vs. The District Magistrate, District
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
17:19:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54054
3 WP-26533-2026
Gwalior & Ors i n Writ Petition No.1681/2025, wherein vide order dated

16/06/2025, the Division Bench has disposed of the matter directing the
Police Authorities for restoration of physical possession. He has also relied
upon a judgment dated 24/06/2026 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd. Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition No.12744 of 2025, strictly
directing the Authorities for repossession of the secured assets without fail
and also observed that strict action should be taken against the trespassers. It
is argued that the case of the petitioner is exactly identical to the aforesaid
cases. Therefore, direction should be issued to the Authorities. He has also
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the Police Authorities to register FIR on
receipt of a complaint regarding cognizable offence. It is argued that the
Police Authorities are duty bound to comply with the same, therefore this
petition has been filed.
4 . Learned counsel for the respondents after going through the
aforesaid judgments fairly submits that the matter is squarely covered by the
judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court and in the light of said
judgment, this petition can be disposed of.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The facts clearly indicates that the application under Section 14 of
SARFAESI Act filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Chief Judical
Magistrate, Sehore on 24/03/2026 directing the Authorities to take physical
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
17:19:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54054
4 WP-26533-2026
possession and to hand it over to the petitioner. In pursuance to which,

physical possession of the property was taken on 13/04/2026 by the revenue
Authorities and the same was handed over to the petitioner. Thereafter, the
petitioner could not protect his property. It is his case that the borrower has
forcibly behind the back of the petitioner in an illegal manner, broke open
the locks and has trespassed and then entered into the secured assets,
committing serious criminal offence for which complaints were made to the
Police Authorities. In terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra), the Police Authorities are duty
bound to comply with the directions to register FIR in case information with
respect to cognizable offence is received by them.
7. As far as directions for restoration of possession to the petitioner is
concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Cholamandalam
Investment and Finance Company Ltd. (supra) vide order dated 16/06/2025
has observed as under:-
"14. The High Court of Bombay in W.P. No.6805/2023
Kotak Mahindra Bank Vs. State of Maharastra & Ors.,
has decided in similar matter and vide order dated
30/06/2023, directed the State Authority to restore the
possession to the secured creditor.
Relevant para 13 of the judgment is reproduced as
under:-
13. Considering the law laid down by the
Division Bench of this court and referred to
by us above, we are unable to agree with the
submission made by the learned AGP that the
District Magistrate does not have the power
to re-execute his own order or that he has
become functus officio. If we were to take
the view as propounded by the learned AGP
it would lead to a complete chaos. We have
no hesitation in stating that the borrowers
have devised a novel, unimaginable and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
17:19:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54054
5 WP-26533-2026
unsustainable modus operandi to defeat the
ends of justice. It is not only the mater of
physical altercation by assaulting the security
guard appointed by the Petitioner Bank and
breaking open the lock and seal affixed on the
secured asset which is wholly illegal, but the
same would also tantamount to an assault on
the law and the statute itself. If, after orders
are passed under section 14 for dispossession
of the borrower, and the same are inter-
meddled with by any person including the
borrower, the same would result in a mockery
of the rule of law. In such a situation the
Court cannot and should not remain a mute
spectator and allow the illegality to continue.
The tendency of trying to overreach the law
as well as the orders passed by Judicial
Authorities has to be nipped in the bud right
away, lest the rule of law shall suffer.”
15. In the case of HDB Financial Services Limited Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (W.P. 1080/2024) .
The High Court of Bombay directed the authorities to
re-execute the order. In many similar cases where the
possession of the secured assets are wrongfully taken
from the secured creditor, authorities are directed by the
Hon'ble High Court to restore the possession and take
appropriate action against the persons who committed
this wrong.
16. The Full Bench of this Court in W.P.
No.11500/2020 also observed that “Therefore,, it is
clear that the action taken under section 14 of the Act
by the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate is not adjudicatory but merely ministerial,
consequent to the action taken by the secured creditor
requiring the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan
magistrate to assist the secure creditor to take
possession of the secured asset and their action would
in effect be deemed to be an action for and on behalf of
the secured creditors.”
17. If one can see powers of the revenue Authorities/
Executive Magistrate while keeping Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act in juxtaposition to Section 248 of the
MPLRC then it appears that authorities deserve to
execute the work again in case of such event as referred
above."
8 . The similar aspect was considered in the case of Bajaj Housing

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
17:19:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54054
6 WP-26533-2026
Finance Ltd. (supra), wherein the Division Bench of the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay has held as under:-
"13. We are also constrained to remind that once the
order under section 14 of the SARFASI is passed and
even if on the scheduled date for any reasons the
possession is not taken, the secured creditor is not
required to once again obtain the orders under section
14 of the Act. The law on this issue is no more res
integra. This Court in the case of Smt. Mishri Bai W/o
Late Shri Nirmal Kumar and others Vs Shubh Laxmi
Mahila Cooperative Bank (2022) SCC Online MP
5883 and referred to by this Court in the matter of The
Nashik Merchant Co-operative Bank Vs The
District Collector, Jalna WP No.10069-2022, Bombay
High Court has been pleased to observe that the secured
creditor is not required to approach the District
Magistrate again and again or DRT for taking order of
possession and once the order has been passed under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, unless and until the
entire amount which is outstanding is recovered, the
order remains valid.
14. Therefore, the secured creditor is not required to
approach the District Magistrate for any fresh orders.
15. It is also made clear that if the directions issued
hereinabove are not complied with, the Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 shall personally remain present on the next
date in this Court to give an explanation as to why the
possession could not be taken on the specified date.
16. The Respondent No 3 shall also communicate this
order to Respondent No 5 and 6.
17. We are also constrained to observe that there has
been a growing tendency of unscrupulous borrowers
who despite being aware that they cannot have any
legitimate claim over the property are brazenly flouting
the orders of the court, as the offenders are aware that
the police machinery will not be seriously taking any
action against them. It high time that the Respondent No
7 i.e the Commissioner of Police looks into it and gives
appropriate instructions in such matters to the police
stations under his jurisdiction. This Court has come
across several instances where such trespass has
occurred and the police are failing in their duty to take
any effective action, with the result such offenders are
not scared to take the law into their hands. We are of the
opinion that the majesty of law must prevail at all costs
and therefore effective steps are required to be taken at
the earliest."
9. If the observations made in the aforesaid cases are taken note of,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
17:19:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54054
7 WP-26533-2026
then it is seen that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has heavily

commented upon the conduct of the Police Authorities in not taking such
matters seriously. This Court is also coming across series of such cases
wherein despite there being a Constitutional Authority, the Police Authorities
are keeping quiet and not taking appropriate action.
10. It is not disputed that the facts of the present case are exactly
identical to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court and
the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay as well as by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases referred therein.
11. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to
dispose of the petition with a direction to the Director General of Police,
State of Madhya Pradesh to instruct the Authorities to take appropriate steps
for restoration of possession of the petitioner for the secured assets and to
also take effective steps against the borrowers who have not only flouted the
orders passed by the competent Court but also committed offence of
trespassing and forcefully entering into the property of the petitioner.
12. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. No
order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
17:19:14