THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.5397/2007 Dt.5-8-2010 1. The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Kongareddypalli Branch, Chittoor Town, Chittoor and another. ..Petitioners V. 1. The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.5397/2007 ORAL ORDER The petitioners, who are arrayed as A-1 and A-2, namely, Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Kongareddypalli Branch, Chittoor Town and K. Vivekananda, Chief Manager and Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Chittoor in CC No.590/2007 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor, filed the present petition under Section 482n Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings initiated against them in the above calendar case. The second respondent, who is the complainant, has availed housing loan to a tune of Rs.2,25,000/- from Indian Bank, Kongareddypalli Branch, agreeing to pay the same in 120 equal monthly instalments at Rs.1875/- being the principal and Rs.225/- being the interest. Since the second respondent did not pay the instalments regularly, a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI ACT, 2002”) has been issued informing him that if the amount is not paid within the time prescribed, proceedings will be initiated under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2002. When the said notice was returned unserved, the same was published in Hindu English daily newspaper on 9-3-2006 and Eenadu Telugu daily newspaper. Alleging publication of the notice harms the reputation of the complainant; he lodged the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468,477-A, 499 and 500 IPC. Learned Judge took cognizance of the same for the offences punishable under Section 499 r/w 500 IPC and issued process. It is not disputed, the second respondent after filing complaint, filed OS No.168/2006 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, he filed IA No.277/2006 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction not to proceed with the sale of property pursuant to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002”. Learned Judge by order dt. 8-2-2007 dismissed the temporary injunction petition holding that there is no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the second respondent (complainant) to grant temporary injunction and vacated ad- interim ex parte injunction granted on 1-6-2006. The petitioners, who are arrayed as A-1 and A-2, issued notice under Sec. 13(2) and published the same in newspapers in discharge of their duties cast upon them under SARFAESI ACT, 2002. Under Section 32 of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002, no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any secured creditor or any of his officers or manager exercising any of the rights of the secured creditor or borrower for anything done or omitted to be done in goods faith under SARFAESI ACT, 2002. The Second respondent, who appears to be an advocate putting 25 years of practice as stated by him in the complaint, could not be expected to file the above complaint, which is nothing but frivolous. The learned Magistrate, in a mechanical manner, took cognizance the case on file and issued process, in ignorance of prohibition contained in Sec. 32 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which cannot be appreciated. In view of the same, continuation of the proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law and same are liable to be quashed. The Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in CC No.590/2007 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor are quashed. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.5-8-2010 kmr