IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.12.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Crl.O.P. No.23861 of 2011 Citibank N.A. Represented by its Authorised Officer S.Shafi Ahamed, Tower Victoire, No.45, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17. .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Inspector of Police, E.1 Mylapore Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 2. Venkat Ramanujam Sankaran .. Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to direct the 1st respondent to register the F.I.R. on the complaint of the petitioner dated 22.03.2011 against one Venkat Ramanujam Sankaran and take action in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Namasivayam For 1st respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R The petition is filed to direct the 1st respondent to register the F.I.R. on the complaint of the petitioner dated 22.03.2011 against one Venkat Ramanujam Sankaran and take action in accordance with law. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the Authorised Officer of the Citibank N.A. and the 2nd respondent had availed financial facilities of Rs.29 Lakhs from their bank and created an equitable mortgage of his property situate at 3rd Floor, Pent House, Old No.120, New No.14, Sivagami Salai, Sullivan Garden Road, Mylapore, Chennai with an intention to create security for repayment of the loan. Since the 2nd respondent was irregular in repayment of the loan, the petitioner has taken possession of the above said immovable property as per the provision of SARFAESI Act and the copy of the possession was also served on him. The learned Counsel further submits that the 2nd respondent has challenged the same before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai who directed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner to hand over the possession of the property to the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and also obtained an order of stay. The learned Counsel also submits that in the meantime, the 2nd respondent had broken the lock and committed criminal trespass into the aforesaid property and also in the occupation of the same. Hence this petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the 1st respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 4. From the perusal of the records, it is seen that the complainant bank has taken possession of the property in question as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The 2nd respondent filed a petition before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I against the possession notice, who in turn, set aside the same. Subsequently, after three months, the complainant bank obtained an interim order of stay. It appears that in the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent has made entry into the property in question. At this juncture, the present complaint came to be filed. As per Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, no complaint can be registered by the police which can also be taken vice versa. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to work out his remedy under due process of law. 5. With the above observation, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar tsi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, VIII Team, Egmore, Chennai-8. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras – 600 104. +1 CC to M/s. S. Namasivayam, Advocate Sr.76588 Crl.O.P. No.23861 of 2011 NR (CO) BMD 11/01/2012 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/