Bajaj Housingh Finance Ltd Through Its Authouized Officer Mr Deepak Kumar Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22282
1 WP-27371-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 24 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 27371 of 2026
BAJAJ HOUSINGH FINANCE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHOUIZED
OFFICER MR DEEPAK KUMAR SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinay Tripathi - Advocate (through VC) for the petitioner.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner 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 11/06/2026.
ii. Direct Respondents No. 2 and 3 to conduct a fair,
impartial and time-bound investigation into the criminal acts
committed by the borrower.
iii. 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 28/03/2026 passed by the
CJM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/24/2026
4:31:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22282
2 WP-27371-2026
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."
So far as the relief pertaining to restoration of possession of the
secured asset is concerned, the issue is no longer res integra. In identical
circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1681 of
2025 has held that there exists no legal impediment in re-executing an order
passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act or in extending fresh
assistance to the secured creditor where the borrower, after having been
dispossessed, illegally re-enters the secured asset and resumes possession
thereof. The Division Bench further observed that such illegal re-entry by the
borrower cannot be permitted to defeat the statutory rights of the secured
creditor or frustrate the object and purpose of the SARFAESI Act.
A similar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in Kotak
Mahindra Bank v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (W.P. No. 6805/2023
decided on 30.06.2023) and in HDB Financial Services Limited v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (W.P. No. 1080/2024), wherein directions were issued
to the authorities to restore possession to the secured creditor by re-executing
the order passed under Section 14 of the Act. The Full Bench of this Court in
W.P. No. 11500/2020 has also held that the action of the District Magistrate
or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act is ministerial
in nature and is undertaken for and on behalf of the secured creditor for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/24/2026
4:31:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22282
3 WP-27371-2026
facilitating recovery of possession of the secured asset.

In view of the aforesaid legal position and having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the petitioner/Financial Institution is entitled to restoration of possession
of the secured asset in pursuance of the order dated 28.03.2026 passed under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Insofar as the reliefs relating to registration of FIR, fair investigation
and initiation of criminal action are concerned, it is well settled by the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.
[(2008) 2 SCC 409] and Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India [(2007) 6 SCC
171] that in cases of non-registration of FIR or alleged police inaction, the
appropriate remedy is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing an
application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
corresponding to Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide
enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are
necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes
the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a
proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper
investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the
police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/24/2026
4:31:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22282
4 WP-27371-2026
opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental

powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.
18. It is well-settled that when a power is given to an
authority to do something it includes such incidental or
implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that
thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted
by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even
without special mention, every power and every control the
denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective.
Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also
grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means
as are essentially necessary to its execution.
19.XXX
20. In ascertaining a necessary implication, the Court
simply determines the legislative will and makes it effective.
What is necessarily implied is as much part of the statute as if
it were specifically written therein.
21.XXX
22.XXX
23.XXX
24.XXX
25. We have elaborated on the above matter because
we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR
has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/24/2026
4:31:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22282
5 WP-27371-2026
investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the

High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should
not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to
interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his
alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section
36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is
of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under
Section 156(3).
26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not
been registered by the police station his first remedy is to
approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3)
Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36
Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police
or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still
persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by
way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ
petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there
are so many alternative remedies?
27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate
has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/24/2026
4:31:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22282
6 WP-27371-2026
ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can

monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is
done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The
High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ
petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because
a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered
by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation
has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the
remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the
concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a
criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by
filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to
a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an
alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily
interfere."
In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is not inclined
to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
in respect of the reliefs relating to registration of FIR and investigation.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to
respondent No. 2 to provide all necessary assistance and aid to the
petitioner/Financial Institution for dispossessing the borrower and/or any
person claiming through him who is in unauthorised occupation of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/24/2026
4:31:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22282
7 WP-27371-2026
secured asset and to restore peaceful and vacant physical possession thereof

to the petitioner/Financial Institution in accordance with law and with due
expedition in terms of the order dated 28.03.2026 passed under Section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act. Insofar as the remaining reliefs are concerned, the
petitioner shall be at liberty to avail such remedies as may be available under
law, including filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973/175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/24/2026
4:31:15 PM