Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the State, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the Bank and Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.6.
2. The prayer in the writ petition is made for quashing of the entire proceedings in Criminal Misc. Case No.29 of 2024 pending before respondent no.2 on the ground the same is without jurisdiction and is in the teeth of order of status quo passed on 24.02.2024 by the High Court in W.P.(C) No.165 of 2024 and without impleading the necessary party i.e. petitioner no.1. The further prayer is made for quashing the order dated 07.02.2024, contained in Annexure-8 passed by respondent no.2 in Criminal Misc. Case No.29 of 2024, whereby, the scheduled property was attached and respondent no.3 was appointed as the receiver of the scheduled property. The prayer is also made for quashing of the warrant of attachment dated 07.02.2024, contained in Annexure-9 issued under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. by respondent no.2 in Criminal Misc. Case No.29 of 2024.
3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 is a registered Trust whose trustees are citizen of India and petitioner no.2 is its Trustee who is looking affairs of petitioner no.1-Trust. He submitted that respondent no.6 is a private individual who had filed a complaint before respondent no.2 on the basis of which Criminal Misc. Case No.29 of 2024 was instituted. He further submitted that the land is situated at Village Mohanpur, Thana No.224, Jamabandi No.11, P.S. Jasidih, District- Deoghar, Plot Nos.301, 309, 310/689, 63, 64, 65, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 87, 88, 193, 197, 204, 282, 308, 339, 340, 341, 352, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 375, 381, 408, 417, 453, 81/685, 81 and 74 ad-measuring an area of 26 acres and 50 decimals along with land, building, structures including all movable items, medical machines and equipment, hospital fixtures and furniture (scheduled property) belonged to M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital. M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital had mortgaged the scheduled property for seeking financial assistance of Rs.93 Crores from the consortium of Banks of which respondent no.4 was the leading Bank and United Bank of India and Oriental Bank of Commerce were members of the consortium for implementation of project. He then submitted that M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital was unable to repay the loan amount and the loan account was declared NPA by Punjab National Bank on 31.03.2011, Union Bank of India on 30.09.2010 and Oriental Bank of Commerce on 31.12.2010, thereafter, the Banks filed O.A. No.154 of 2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,41,39,09,761.56/- (Rupees One Hundred and Forty One Crores Thirty Nine Lakhs Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty One and Fifty Six Paise). The said O.A. was allowed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi vide order dated 26.06.2015 and recovery certificate was issued for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,41,39,09,761.56/- (Rupees One Hundred and Forty One Crores Thirty Nine Lakhs Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty One and Fifty Six Paise) and, thereafter, demand notice dated 13.07.2015 was issued by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi wherein M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital was called upon to pay the certificate amount. The Recovery Officer vide order dated 13.04.2016 issued the warrant of attachment for attachment of immovable property mortgaged with the consortium Bank which was forwarded to the Recovery Inspector and another warrant of attachment of movable properties was issued on 27.10.2016 and receiver was appointed for preparation of inventory of movable properties. He further submitted that the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal and Bank have thereafter taken repeated efforts to auction the scheduled property. The scheduled property was again put to auction vide order dated 08.11.2023 and the auction schedule was fixed for 20.12.2023. He submitted that before the date of auction sale, one interlocutory application was filed by M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital before the Recovery Officer on 18.12.2023 for stay of the auction on 20.12.2023, which was rejected on 19.12.2023. He further submitted that the auction was taken place on 20.12.2023 and petitioner no.1 was declared successful bidder and the order of confirmation of the sale along with the certificate of sale was issued in favour of petitioner no.1 on 23.01.2024, contained in Annexure-2. By way of drawing attention of the Court to Annexure-4, which is the order passed by the High Court in W.P.(C) No.165 of 2024, he submitted that the said writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital, in which, petitioner no.1 was not made party-respondent. The said writ petition was listed on 24.01.2024 at 04:00 P.M. He submitted that the petitioners came to know about listing of the said matter. It was submitted that the petitioner is the auction purchaser of the scheduled property and he has not been impleaded as respondent in the said writ petition and the Bank has also submitted that the possession of the schedule property has been handed over to petitioner no.1 at around 03:00 P.M. and recording the said submission, the High Court passed the order of status quo over the scheduled property on 24.01.2024 and the matter was further directed to be listed on 30.01.2024. The respondent-Punjab National Bank filed counter affidavit in the said writ petition, wherein, it was stated that at 03:17 P.M., the possession of the scheduled property was handed over to petitioner no.1. He further submitted that in violation of the order of status quo passed by the High Court, the Guard of M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital, who is respondent no.6 in the present writ petition, filed an application before respondent no.2 on 27.01.2024 against petitioner no.2 for recovery of possession of the scheduled property alleging therein that petitioner no.2 has illegally taken the possession of the scheduled property on 24.01.2024 at 05:00 P.M., thereafter, respondent no.2 on the basis of the application filed by respondent no.6 initiated a proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. against petitioner no.2, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No.29 of 2024. He then submitted that petitioner no.1 was not impleaded as party-respondent in the said proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., whereas, the said property was already handed over to petitioner no.1 on 24.01.2024 at 03:17 P.M. Vide order dated 27.01.2024, notices were issued upon petitioner no.2 and respondent no.6 and the matter was posted for 07.02.2024 by respondent no.2. He submitted that no notice with regard to the proceeding in Criminal Misc. Case No.29 of 2024 was however served upon petitioner no.2 and without verifying the same and without providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner no.2, the order dated 07.02.2024 has been passed by respondent no.2, wherein, the scheduled property has been attached and respondent no.3 has been appointed as receiver under Section 146 Cr.P.C. He submitted that the petitioners were unaware of the proceeding initiated by respondent no.2 on the application filed by respondent no.6 and they came to know about the order dated 07.02.2024 later on. He submitted that in this background, the initiation of proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is without jurisdiction and in violation of the order passed by the High Court dated 24.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No.165 of 2024. He submitted that the said proceeding was bad in law as the petitioners were not made party and they were not heard and in spite of that, the order has been passed. He also submitted that the possession was handed over to petitioner no.1 on 24.01.2024 at 03:17 P.M., as such, the contention of respondent no.6 was not correct that by 05:00 P.M., M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital was in possession. He further submitted that respondent nos. 1 to 3 by way of biasness and malafide intention, have passed such order in violation of the order of the High Court as the auction sale was in favour of the petitioners and sale certificate was also issued. He submitted that the entire proceeding is vitiated on the ground of principle of natural justice also. He submitted that the interlocutory application being I.A. No.1006 of 2024 was filed in W.P.(C) No.165 of 2024 by M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital for initiation of contempt against petitioner no.2 for violating the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the High Court, however, the writ petition itself was dismissed on the ground of maintainability and no contempt proceeding was initiated vide order dated 13.02.2024. He submitted that although against the order dated 13.02.2024, L.P.A. has been preferred and in that appeal the judgment is reserved, however, the same has got no concern so far as the present writ petition is concerned. He submitted that once the auction sale was in favour of the petitioners and certificate was also issued and the Recovery Officer has already handed over the said property, the respondent, if he was aggrieved, he was having remedy of filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. On the maintainability of Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C., he submitted that the authority concerned has got no jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 438. He referred paragraph 23 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
“23. For the purpose of legal proceedings initiated before a competent court subsequent to the order of an Executive Magistrate under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the law as to the effect of the order of the Magistrate may be summarized as under:
(1) The words “competent court” as used in sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Code do not necessarily mean a civil court only. A competent court is one which has the jurisdictional competence to determine the question of title or the rights of the parties with regard to the entitlement as to possession over the property forming the subject-matter of proceedings before the Executive Magistrate:
(2) A party unsuccessful in an order under Section 145(1) would initiate proceedings in a competent court to establish its entitlement to possession over the disputed property against the successful party. Ordinarily, a relief of recovery of possession would be appropriate to be sought for. In legal proceedings initiated before a competent court consequent upon attachment under Section 146(1) of the Code it is not necessary to seek relief of recovery of possession. As the property is held custodia legis by the Magistrate for and on behalf of the party who would ultimately succeed from the court, it would suffice if only determination of the rights with regard to the entitlement to the possession is sought for. Such a suit shall not be bad for not asking for the relief of possession.
(3) A decision by a criminal court does not bind the civil court while a decision by the civil court binds the criminal court. An order passed by the Executive Magistrate in proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code is an order by a criminal court and that too based on a summary enquiry. The order is entitled to respect and wait before the competent court at the interlocutory stage. At the stage of final adjudication of rights, which would be on the evidence adduced before the court, the order of the Magistrate is only one out of several pieces of evidence.
(4) The court will be loath to issue an order of interim injunction or to order an interim arrangement inconsistent with the one made by the Executive Magistrate. However, to say so is merely stating a rule of caution or restraint, on exercise of discretion by court, dictated by prudence and regard for the urgent/emergent executive orders made within jurisdiction by their makers; and certainly not a tab on the power of court. The court does have jurisdiction to make an interim order including an order of ad interim injunction inconsistent with the order of the Executive Magistrate. The jurisdiction is there but the same shall be exercised not as a rule but as an exception. Even at the stage of passing an ad interim order the party unsuccessful before the Executive Magistrate may on material placed before the court succeed in making out a strong prima facie case demonstrating the findings of the Executive Magistrate to be without jurisdiction, palpably wrong or self-inconsistent in which or the like cases the court may, after recording its reasons and satisfaction, make an order inconsistent with, or in departure from, the one made by the Executive Magistrate. The order of the court — final or interlocutory, would have the effect of declaring one of the parties entitled to possession and evicting therefrom the party successful before the Executive Magistrate within the meaning of sub-section (6) of Section 145.”
Relying on the above judgment, he submitted that the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. itself was bad in law.
On the point of Section 146 Cr.P.C., learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 366. He referred paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the said judgment, which read as under:
“9. The above order would indicate that the SDM has, in our view, wrongly invoked the powers under Section 146(1) CrPC. Under Section 146(1), a Magistrate can pass an order of attachment of the subject of dispute if it be a case of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was in such possession, or he cannot decide as to which of them was in possession. Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code together constitute a scheme for the resolution of a situation where there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace and Section 146 cannot be separated from Section 145 CrPC. It can only be read in the context of Section 145 CrPC. If after the enquiry under Section 145 of the Code, the Magistrate is of the opinion that none of the parties was in actual possession of the subject of dispute at the time of the order passed under Section 145(1) or is unable to decide which of the parties was in such possession, he may attach the subject of dispute, until a competent court has determined the right of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to possession thereof.
10. The ingredients necessary for passing an order under Section 145(1) of the Code would not automatically attract for the attachment of the property. Under Section 146, a Magistrate has to satisfy himself as to whether emergency exists before he passes an order of attachment. A case of emergency, as contemplated under Section 146 of the Code, has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of a breach of the peace. The Magistrate, before passing an order under Section 146, must explain the circumstances why he thinks it to be a case of emergency. In other words, to infer a situation of emergency, there must be material on record before the Magistrate when the submission of the parties is filed, documents produced or evidence adduced.
11. We find from this case that there is nothing to show that an emergency exists so as to invoke Section 146(1) and to attach the property in question. A case of emergency, as per Section 146 of the Code has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of peace. When the reports indicate that one of the parties is in possession, rightly or wrongly, the Magistrate cannot pass an order of attachment on the ground of emergency. The order acknowledges the fact that Ashok Kumar has started construction in the property in question, therefore, possession of property is with the appellant Ashok Kumar, whether it is legal or not, is not for the SDM to decide.”
By way of relying on the above judgments, he submitted that in absence of any report, the orders have been passed and the possession was in favour of the petitioners rightly or wrongly, the learned Magistrate was not required to pass an order of attachment on the ground of emergency.
On these grounds, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.
4. Per contra, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the order was well within jurisdiction and in view of that, respondent no.2 has rightly passed the order. By way of referring the order dated 07.02.2024, he submitted that the report and the concern of law and order was raised by the Special Branch, Ranchi and the Circle Officer has also pointed out the same and, thereafter, the said order has been passed and, as such, the order is in accordance with law and this Court may not interfere with the writ petition.
5. Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 submitted that the petitioners have suppressed the material fact in the order dated 23.01.2024 of the Recovery Officer in R.C. Case No.236 of 2015 to the effect that the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar was also directed to be involved in the process of handing over the possession of the property to the auction purchaser. He further submitted that status quo order was passed by the High Court in W.P.(S) No.165 of 2024 and M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital categorically stated that possession of the property has not yet been taken by the auction purchaser. He submitted that the incident took place at 05:00 P.M. on 24.01.2024 at M/s Paritran Medical College, Jasidih, Deoghar and for that criminal incident, one FIR being Jasidih P.S. Case No.30/2024 was also registered. He also submitted that on 25.01.2024, an application with regard to the incident dated 24.01.2024 was received by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar along with an Advocate Certificate and, thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner has forwarded the matter to the Circle Officer, Deoghar vide letter dated 27.01.2024 with direction to submit an Inquiry Report. He submitted that respondent no.6 submitted an application on 27.01.2024 before respondent no.2 with regard to Jasidih P.S. Case No.30/2024 and requested for immediate intervention and, thereafter, Criminal Misc. Case No.29/2024 between Nand Kishore Rai and Devta Kumar Pandey and others was registered under Section 145 Cr.P.C. He submitted that respondent no.2 after hearing the parties and perusing the report of the Officer-in-Charge of Jasidih Police Station and report of Special Branch, Ranchi as well as the report of the Circle Officer, passed an under under Section 146 Cr.P.C. relating to attachment and appointment of receiver and, therefore, the order has been passed in emergency situation and, as such, there is no illegality in the order. He submitted that rightly the receiver was appointed. On these grounds, he submitted that there is no illegality in the order and, as such, this writ petition may kindly be dismissed.
6. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the respondent-Punjab National Bank submitted that the finance facility was extended to M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital by the Bank and the Punjab National Bank was consortium leader. He submitted that the property in question was auctioned on 20.12.2023 and sale certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner no.1 on 23.01.2024 and pursuant to that, the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi has handed over peaceful physical possession to petitioner no.1 at 03:17 P.M. on 24.01.2024, which is evident from the memo drawn by the Advocate Commissioner on 24.01.2024. He submitted that there was no exceptional reason or ground in favour of respondent no.6. The auction took place on 20.12.2023 and the procedures are prescribed under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 how to proceed further. The sale was confirmed on 23.01.2024 and the sale certificate was issued in favour of petitioner no.1 which becomes absolute and the sale has been conducted as per the provision of 2nd and 3rd schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He further submitted that the respondent no.6 has not preferred any appeal under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. were drawn, which were without jurisdiction. On these grounds, he submitted that there is no merit in the contention of the respondent no.6 and this Court may pass appropriate order.
7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. Admittedly, the said property of M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital was mortgaged with three Banks and Punjab National Bank was consortium Bank and the said Hospital failed to repay the amount of loan and pursuant to that the loan account was declared NPA. Thereafter, the Bank instituted O.A. No. 154 of 2013 for recovery of amount in which, direction was issued vide order dated 26.06.2015 to pay the amount to the tune of Rs.1,41,39,09,761.56/-(Rupees One Hundred and Forty One Crores Thirty Nine Lakhs Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty One and Fifty Six Paise) and recovery certificate was issued and when the amount was not paid within the stipulated time, the Recovery Officer vide order dated 13.04.2016 issued the warrant of attachment. M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital has also filed an interlocutory application for stay of the auction dated 20.12.2023, which was rejected and pursuant to that, petitioner no.1 was declared successful bidder and certificate of sale was issued in favour of petitioner no.1 on 23.01.2024. In the meantime, the said M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P.(C) No.165 of 2024 in which status quo order was passed on 24.01.2024 at 04:00 P.M. The cause-list is annexed with the writ petition, contained in Annexure-3, which clearly suggests that the matter was listed at 04:00 P.M. before the concerned Bench. On the submission of the learned counsel for the Bank, it was observed in the said writ petition vide order dated 24.01.2024 that the possession has been handed over to the auction purchaser at around 03:00 P.M. on 24.01.2024 and status quo order was passed. The documents on record further suggest that the order of preparation of inventory of assets and handing over the peaceful possession of scheduled property has taken place on 24.01.2024 at 03:17 P.M. by the Advocate Commissioner, which was in presence of three witnesses, who have signed the said document and the auction purchaser has also signed on the said document. Thus, it is crystal clear that the said handing over process was already completed on 24.01.2024 at 03:17 P.M. in favour of petitioner no.1, which was also observed in the order of the High Court dated 24.01.2024 and the High Court passed the order of status quo. Thus, the possession of the petitioners are proved on that day, however, on the application of respondent no.6 of the same day at 05:00 P.M., the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated on 27.01.2024 and it was posted for 07.02.2024 and on 07.02.2024, respondent no.2 has passed the order of attachment under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. and respondent no.3 was appointed as receiver. Looking into the order dated 27.01.2024 passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. as well as the order dated 07.02.2024, the Court finds that the petitioners have not been provided any opportunity of hearing and in absence of that, the said two orders have been passed.
8. For deciding the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to keep in mind the availability of prima facie case, balance of convenience and the irreparable injury and should have regard to the materials in the affidavit, documents and pleadings and, thereafter, the orders are required to be passed. Sub-section (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. clearly speaks that the concerned party in such dispute is required to be noticed to attend the Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time and written statements of claims are required to be filed and, thereafter, the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. can proceed. In absence of all these things, the order has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
9. Further, the order under Section 146 Cr.P.C. can be passed if the learned Magistrate come to a conclusion that nobody is in possession and it cannot be decided which of the parties are in possession. Section 146 Cr.P.C. cannot be separated from Section 145 Cr.P.C. and on these points, the judgments relied by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in the cases of Shanti Kumar Panda and Ashok Kumar (supra) are in favour of the petitioners.
10. Further, when status quo order was passed by the High Court and by 03:17 P.M. itself, the petitioners were put in possession of the property in question, in violation of the order of the High Court, all these orders have been passed, however, the said writ petition was dismissed later on.
11. Admittedly, the case is arising out of auction sale and in terms of Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, if anybody is aggrieved, he is having remedy of filing an appeal and without availing the same, all these proceedings were initiated at the instance of respondent no.6 without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which clearly suggests that these orders have been passed arbitrarily without following mandate of law.
12. When a property is sold by public auction in pursuance of an order of the Court and the bid is accepted and the sale is confirmed by the Court in favour of the purchaser, the sale becomes absolute and the title vests in the purchaser. A sale certificate is issued to the purchaser only when the sale becomes absolute. The sale certificate is merely the evidence of such title. It is well settled that when an auction purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the Court is contemplated or required. The sale certificate itself was issued, though such a sale certificate issued by a Court or an officer authorised by the Court, does not require registration. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Arvind Kumar v. Govt. of India and others, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 745, wherein, in paragraph no.12, these aspects have been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment reads as under:
“12. The plaintiff has produced the original registered sale certificate dated 29-8-1941 executed by the Official Receiver, Civil Station, Bangalore. The said deed certifies that Bhowrilal (father of the plaintiff) was the highest bidder at an auction-sale held on 22-8-1941, in respect of the right, title, interest of the insolvent Anraj Sankla, namely, the leasehold right in the property described in the schedule to the certificate (suit property), that his bid of Rs 8350 was accepted and the sale was confirmed by the District Judge, Civil and Military Station, Bangalore on 25-8-1941. The sale certificate declared Bhowrilal to be the owner of the leasehold right in respect of the suit property. When a property is sold by public auction in pursuance of an order of the court and the bid is accepted and the sale is confirmed by the court in favour of the purchaser, the sale becomes absolute and the title vests in the purchaser. A sale certificate is issued to the purchaser only when the sale becomes absolute. The sale certificate is merely the evidence of such title. It is well settled that when an auction-purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the court is contemplated or required. In this case, the sale certificate itself was registered, though such a sale certificate issued by a court or an officer authorised by the court, does not require registration. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 specifically provides that a certificate of sale granted to any purchaser of any property sold by a public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer does not fall under the category of non- testamentary documents which require registration under sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section 17(1) of the said Act. We therefore hold that the High Court committed a serious error in holding that the sale certificate did not convey any right, title or interest to plaintiff's father for want of a registered deed of transfer.”
13. Admittedly, in the case in hand, on the Court's order, the Advocate Commissioner has been handed over the scheduled property to the petitioners on 24.01.2024 at 03:17 P.M.
14. The Court finds that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 that the involvement of the Deputy Commissioner was necessary, the same is misconceived one. The Recovery Officer has also directed that Certificate Holder Bank to assist the Advocate Commissioner and help him to liaise with the authorities for peaceful possession of the property and peaceful possession has already been handed over in line of the Court's order. Since by the order of the Court, the possession has been handed over in presence of the Advocate Commissioner as well as of the witnesses, the stage of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has not come and the involvement of the Deputy Commissioner was rightly not called upon.
15. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that the entire criminal proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. are vitiated as without following due process of law, the proceedings were initiated and the orders have been passed which cannot sustain in the eyes of law and, as such, the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Criminal Misc. Case No.29 of 2024, pending before respondent no.2 as well as the the order dated 07.02.2024, contained in Annexure-8 passed by respondent no.2 in Criminal Misc. Case No.29 of 2024 and the warrant of attachment dated 07.02.2024, contained in Annexure-9 issued by respondent no.2 in Criminal Misc. Case No.29 of 2024 are, hereby, quashed.
16. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
17. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
