Rupa Borah vs. The State Of Assam 9 Ors

Facts

The petitioner's son availed financial accommodation from Canara Bank for his business, which later became a Non-Performing Asset. The petitioner alleges that bank officials instigated her son to purchase machinery and that due to the COVID-19 pandemic and GST regime, his business suffered losses. The bank initiated recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and invoked the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner claims her property was auctioned without proper notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and sold at a low price to Respondent No. 10. She discovered this on November 3, 2023, and alleges that on November 4, 2023, Respondent No. 10 and others trespassed, looted property, damaged household items, and assaulted her and her son, leading to their hospitalization. FIRs were filed on November 4 and 14, 2023. Subsequent complaints were made to police authorities. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a CBI investigation into the FIRs.

Held

The Court held that the issue regarding the grievance against the bank concerning the auction of the petitioner's property, where she was a guarantor, should be adjudicated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The Court noted that a SARFAESI application (SA No.91/2023) was pending before the DRT. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in K. Virupaksha and Anr., the Court stated that the DRT has the power to decide on the bank's compliance with legal procedures during auction proceedings. Therefore, the Court found it inappropriate to direct a CBI investigation into the bank's actions. Regarding the FIRs, the Court noted that charge-sheets have already been filed in connection with the FIRs lodged by the petitioner and her son. The Court observed that the petitioner has alternative statutory remedies available if dissatisfied with the investigation or charge-sheet, as per the BNSS, 2023. The Court found no material to suggest the petitioner has availed such remedies or protested the charge-sheet. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was not a fit case for ordering further investigation or a CBI inquiry. The Court clarified that the dismissal would not prejudice the petitioner in any future legal proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the FIRs filed by the petitioner and her son, considering the alleged illegalities committed by bank officials and Respondent No. 10 in the auction of the petitioner's property and subsequent assault. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the investigation into the FIRs was improper and did not address the illegalities committed by bank officials in connivance with Respondent No. 10, leading to the sale of her property at a throwaway price without due procedure under the SARFAESI Act. She seeks a CBI investigation due to the alleged inaction and lack of proper investigation by the local police. Revenue's arguments: The State submitted a status report indicating that the son's FIR (Nagaon P.S Case No.1043/23) led to a charge-sheet. The petitioner's FIR (Nagaon P.S Case No. 1102/23) also resulted in a charge-sheet. A subsequent complaint by the petitioner on November 14, 2023, was treated as supplementary information to Nagaon P.S Case No. 1102/23, which is permissible. The State argued that statutory remedies exist for aggrieved persons dissatisfied with the investigation or charge-sheet.