Order passed under Section 14 SARFAESI Act may be re-executed if borrower illegally resumes possession.

The petitioner, a financial institution, obtained an order dated 22.02.2024 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of a secured asset

Despite the order, the borrower allegedly re-entered the property illegally after being dispossessed

The petitioner filed a complaint on 07.05.2026 seeking the registration of an FIR and police assistance to restore peaceful possession, but upon receiving no relief from the authorities, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

1. Whether a secured creditor is entitled to the restoration of possession through police assistance if a borrower illegally re-enters a secured asset after the execution of an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct the registration of an FIR and investigation in cases of alleged police inaction

The court applied Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, noting that the Magistrate's role is ministerial to facilitate recovery of possession

It relied on W.P. No. 1681/2025 (MPHC), Kotak Mahindra Bank v. State of Maharashtra, and HDB Financial Services Limited v. State of Maharashtra, which establish that an order under Section 14 can be re-executed if the borrower illegally resumes possession

Regarding criminal proceedings, the court applied the principles from Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [(2008) 2 SCC 409] and Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India [(2007) 6 SCC 171], which hold that the appropriate remedy for non-registration of an FIR is an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC (now Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) before a Magistrate

The court reasoned that illegal re-entry by a borrower cannot be permitted to frustrate the statutory purpose of the SARFAESI Act or defeat the rights of the secured creditor

Since the issue of re-executing Section 14 orders is no longer res integra (already settled), the court found the petitioner entitled to police aid to restore possession

Following the Sakiri Vasu precedent, the court determined that the High Court should discourage writ petitions for FIR registration when the Magistrate holds wide powers under Section 156(3) CrPC to ensure proper investigation

Regarding the registration of an FIR and investigation, the court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and granted the petitioner liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC / 175(3) BNSS

The petition was disposed of accordingly