JUDGMENT
V.K. Gupta, C.J.
1. With respect to a dispute relating to the recovery of money, the State Bank of India appears to have taken recourse to the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (2002 Act). Apparently and undisputably a notice under Section 13(2) of 2002 Act was served upon the petitioner and apparently because of the alleged non-payment of the amounts clue from the petitioner to the Bank, (the Bank claims that an amount of Rs. 1,36,85,478.89 along with interest and other charges is due to it from the petitioner) the Bank issued a possession notice on 18th March, 2006 taking over the possession of the property described in the said notice in terms of Section. 13(4) of 2002 Act.
2. Against the aforesaid act of the Bank in taking over the possession of the property in exercise of the Bank’s power under Section 13(4) of 2002 Act, the petitioner tried to set in motion the machinery under Criminal Law because the petitioner’s contention is that by taking the aforesaid action the Bank and its officers, more particularly respondent No. 6 have committed offences. In this petition, the petitioner’s grievance is that the Police Officers, including respondents No. 4 and 5 have not initiated any criminal action against the Bank and its officers which they ought to have done.
3. After hearing Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and en going through various documents appended with the petition and after a careful took at the provisions of 2002 Act, I feel absolutely convinced that the Bank or its officers have not committed any offence at all because, rightly or wrongly, all that they have done is to invoke the provisions of 2002 Act to the best of their perception and ability. Whether in the realm of Civil law the aforesaid action of the Bank and its officers is sustainable or not can. be tested in an appropriate Court of competent jurisdiction but by no stretch of imagination can this action be termed as being criminal in nature, because by taking legitimate recourse to the provisions of law, the Bank or its officers cannot be said to have committed any offence, The petition has no merit and being accordingly liable to dismissal, is hereby dismissed in limine.
4. The dismissal of this petition., however, shall not and cannot prevent the petitioner from taking recourse to such other remedies as are available to it under law for challenging the aforesaid action of the Bank and its officers, if so advised.