ORDER
Anoop V. Mohta, J.
1. By this present petition a challenge has been made to a Criminal Case S.T.C. No. 264/94, wherein, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pachora, by an order dated 12-1-1996 has issued a process Under Sections 420, 500 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., on perusing police report, as per Section 202 of Cr. P.C. The present petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Cr. P.C. which is pending since 1990. There has been an interm order since 28-2-1996.
2. As respondent No. 1 failed to deposit the instalment of loan regularly, therefore, notice was issued on 23-2-1995 by the petitioner-Bank. On 6-7-1995, Dispute Nos. 227 and 224 of 1993 filed Under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for the recovery of the said loan along with the interest. In the said dispute an application was filed for attachment before judgment.
3. In the said application dated 1-10-1990, there are an usual averments made about apprehension of the party that respondent No. 1 is likely to dispose of the property and once the property is disposed of, it will be difficult for the petitioner-applicant to recover the loan.
4. Respondent No. 1 on 8-10-1993 gave undertaking that he would not transfer or sell the property and further he would not act against the interest of the petitioner.
5. Respondent No. 1 however, based on the apprehension as referred to above has filed on 5-5-1994, a Criminal Complaint No. 264/94, Under Sections 499, 500, 427 of I.P.C. alleging that the averments made therein amounts to defamation. On 7-5-1994 learned J.M.F.C., Pachora ordered for an enquiry Under Section 202 of Cr. P.C. On 13-12-1994 a report was submitted by the Police. On 12-1-1996 the learned J.M.F.C., Pachora has issued process and, therefore, the present writ petition by the petitioners.
6. The averments supporting the ingredients of Order 38, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) are present. The basic requirement in such application is the plaintiffs apprehension that the defendant about to dispose of the whole or any part of the property or is about to remove the property from the local jurisdiction or the defendant with intent to obstruct or delay an execution of a decree. This basic requirement if absent from such application. Court may or may not pass order of attachment before judgment. The object of attachment before judgment is to prevent a decree from becoming infructuous. The petitioners therefore, are within the framework of law to move the application with such averments, which is necessary for the satisfaction of the Court. The Court’s satisfaction, therefore, always based on the contents of averments made in such applications. The vague allegations are insufficient in such matters.
7. In the present case the said averments are made on affidavit by the petitioners. Respondent No. 1 not denied the same and on the contrary submitted undertaking dated 18-10-1993 that he would not transfer the property or would not take any action against the interest of the petitioner-applicant. In this background, it is difficult to accept the case of the complainant that the petitioner has intended to defame respondent No. 1 by making such allegations or expressing apprehension as referred above. The parties are bound to make such averments in such application in view of the requirements of law, in so far as, the attachment before judgment is concerned. In the facts and circumstances such averments were not defamatory and /or intended to defame the party. The ingredients of Section 499 read with Section 500, in such matter are not at all available. There was no imputation as such which would have harm the reputation of the person merely because some apprehension as referred to above have been made by the petitioner. The petitioner being bank is entitled to recover the loan amount. Such application therefore, as filed, in no way amounts to circulation of defamatory statement. Respondent himself has given the undertaking in support of the said apprehension.
8. In view of above, this is a fit case to quash and set aside the proceedings initiated on the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. The continuation of such proceedings amounts to the abuse of process of law. The Apex Court in Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar, , while quashing the order of issuance of process Under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) has observed as under:
Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amount to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.
9. At this stage of final hearing after 10 years, there is no point in directing the parties to file revision against the order of issuance of process, as sought to be contended by relying on V.K. Jain v. Pratap V. Padode, reported in 2005 (3) Mah LJ 778. The issue of alternative remedy of revision was considered at the time of admission of the petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. against the order of issuance of process. There is no total bar expressed with this regard even in V.K. Jain (supra).
10. As a case is made out by the petitioner, I am inclined to interfere in this matter and accordingly, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 12-1-1996 and the Criminal Complaint No. 264/94 pending before J.M.F.C, Pachora.
11. In view of this, the criminal writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (B). Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
