IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5331 of 2009 Between: Indian Bank rep. by its Branch Manager, Innespeta, Rajahmundry and others .. Petitioners AND Smt. Sirbunnisa Begum and another .. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash C.C. No.183 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, Advocate for the petitioners and of the Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent, the Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5331 of 2009 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed a complaint under Sections 27 and 29 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) against the petitioners herein alleging that the debt was not registered with the Central Registrar as provided in Section 23 and the company was not registered under Section 3 and that there was no securitisation agreement. In the reply notice given by the petitioners to the legal notice from the 1st respondent prior to the complaint, the petitioners clearly stated that the Government did not set up any Registry for registering the debt. The complaint was still entertained by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry in C.C. No.183 of 2009 when summonses were directed to be issued to the petitioners on 08-06-2009. The petitioners filed the present petition contending that the 1st petitioner bank obtained a preliminary decree and a final decree against the 1st respondent’s son in respect of the debt in O.S. No.383 of 2003 and I.A. No.112 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajahmundry. The rights under the Act were exercised by the 1st petitioner bank as a secured creditor with security interest in the property and after confirmation of sale in favour of a third party purchaser, this complaint was filed by the 1st respondent. Sections 20 to 27 of the Act provide for setting up a Central Registry, appointment of a Central Registrar, maintenance of a Register of Securitisation and the consequential procedures while prescribing penalties for default in compliance with Sections 23 to 25. A Central Registry was not constituted by a notification under Section 20 and a Central Registrar was not appointed under Section 21, due to which, the said provisions obviously did not come into force, as clearly specified in Section 39 that the provisions of the Act under Sub-sections (2) to (4) of Section 20 and Sections 21 to 27 shall apply only after the Central Registry is set up or caused to be set up under Section 20 Sub-section (1). The petitioners further contend that apart from the said provisions not coming into force, the petitioners are also protected in respect of the action taken in good faith under Section 32 of the Act. They also claim that prior permission under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also required for prosecuting public servants. The 1st respondent did not enter appearance though served with notice of the petition and consequently, Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent, are heard. The claim that no Central Registry was notified and that no Central Registrar was appointed, can be even taken judicial notice of and if so, the provisions of Sections 20 to 27 of the Act are not capable of being implemented and that they do not apply till Central Registry is set up, is evident from Section 39, due to which, irrespective of the other contentions of the petitioners, the complaint under Sections 27 and 29 of the Act is patently untenable. Issuance of summons to the petitioners in such complaint can, therefore, be an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C. No.183 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry against the petitioners are quashed and the criminal petition is allowed. ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-08-2009 Svv