SARFAESI Section 32 bars prosecution of bank officers for acts done in good faith.

The complainant alleged that he purchased mortgaged property at a bank auction after submitting the highest bid and paying the amounts demanded by bank officials.

Although the petitioner, then a Regional Manager of the Central Bank of India, issued the sale certificate, the complainant alleged that the property was neither registered nor delivered to him and that bank staff threatened and assaulted him when he sought redress.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 120B IPC by order dated 12 June 2014.

The petitioner sought quashing, contending that the dispute concerned possession, that he had properly issued the sale certificate, and that the prosecution was an abuse of process.

Whether the allegations in the complaint disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 420 and 120B IPC against the petitioner, warranting continuation of the proceedings.

Whether the cognizance order and proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed as an abuse of the process of the Court, having regard to his role in the auction and Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act.

Sections 420 and 120B IPC concern cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively, and were the offences for which cognizance had been taken.

Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act provides protection from suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings for a secured creditor or its officers for acts done or omitted in good faith under the Act; the Court relied on this protection in assessing the petitioner’s role in the bank auction.

The Court also referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate in support of the petitioner’s request to quash the proceedings.

The petitioner’s Section 197 CrPC sanction argument was recorded, but the judgment does not separately decide it.

The Court treated the complainant’s principal grievance as the non-delivery of possession, rather than failure by the petitioner to issue a sale certificate.

It noted that the sale certificate had been issued and that the petitioner’s identified role was its issuance in his capacity as Regional Manager.

In light of that role and the protection under Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, the Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process.

The application was allowed.