Secured creditor is entitled to police assistance for restoration of possession if borrower illegally re-enters secured asset.

The petitioner, a financial institution, obtained an order dated 28/03/2026 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for the physical possession of a secured asset

After the petitioner was initially granted possession, the borrower allegedly re-entered the premises illegally

The petitioner filed a complaint on 11/06/2026 seeking the registration of an FIR and police assistance to restore vacant possession and provide continuous protection

Alleging police inaction, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether a secured creditor is entitled to the restoration of possession through the re-execution of a Section 14 SARFAESI order if a borrower illegally re-enters the property

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct the registration of an FIR and investigation when alternative remedies under the CrPC/BNSS are available

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, noting that the Magistrate's role is ministerial and intended to facilitate the recovery of assets

Division Bench ruling in W.P. No. 1681 of 2025 and the Bombay High Court decisions in Kotak Mahindra Bank v. State of Maharashtra and HDB Financial Services Limited v. State of Maharashtra, which established that illegal re-entry by a borrower does not exhaust the power to execute a Section 14 order

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 mandate that grievances regarding non-registration of FIRs must be addressed via Section 156(3) of the CrPC/Section 175(3) of the BNSS before a Magistrate rather than through writ petitions

The court reasoned that the statutory rights of a secured creditor cannot be frustrated by a borrower’s illegal acts, such as resuming possession after dispossession.

Since the CJM’s order under Section 14 is ministerial, there is no legal impediment to re-executing it to restore the petitioner to the position it held prior to the borrower’s trespass

Regarding the prayer for an FIR, the court determined that Article 226 is not the appropriate vehicle for such relief

Following the Sakiri Vasu precedent, the court held that the Magistrate possesses wide incidental powers to ensure proper investigation and monitor the same, and therefore, the petitioner must exhaust the alternative statutory remedies provided under the criminal code before seeking extraordinary constitutional remedies

It declined to interfere in matters of FIR registration and investigation, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC or Section 175(3) of the BNSS. The petition was disposed of with a direction for "due expedition" in restoring possession