The Supreme Court has quashed a criminal case filed against an HDFC Bank officer, ruling that he was not the authorised officer at the time of the auction sale in question. The Court concluded that the officer had no role in the sale process and continuing proceedings against him would be a misuse of legal process.
Case Background
The case was based on allegations of cheating and forgery related to an auction sale of a property previously acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. A complaint was filed in Tamil Nadu, claiming that HDFC Bank officials hid the fact that the property had already been acquired. The auction purchaser also filed a consumer complaint against senior HDFC Ltd. officials.
The accused bank officer had approached the Madras High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking to quash the case. However, the High Court rejected his plea, leading him to approach the Supreme Court.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Rejects Plea for SEBI’s Final Report in Adani-Hindenburg Case, Backs Ongoing Probe
In his defense, the appellant stated that during the 2012 auction, he served only as an Assistant Manager. He highlighted that only a Manager or above is legally permitted to act as an “Authorised Officer” under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
“An officer not below Chief Manager of a public sector bank, or equivalent, as defined by the Board, can act as an authorised officer under the SARFAESI Act.”
He further stated that the consumer complaint filed against him had already been dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Commission noted that the purchaser was aware of the property's status at the time of auction, as shown in the possession receipt she had signed.
The officer’s counsel also cited Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, which protects officials acting in good faith from legal liability.
Read Also:- Advocates-On-Record: The Backbone of Justice - Insights from Justice Surya Kant at Felicitation Event
On the other side, the police argued that the buyer only learned about the acquisition after trying to register the property. They claimed that hiding the property’s acquisition status showed bad faith, and hence, the officer was not protected under Section 32.
However, the Supreme Court found that the appellant had no role in the auction process and was not the authorised officer at the time.
“It is evident that the sale certificate was issued by the appellant’s predecessor... no direct involvement of the appellant can be seen,” observed the bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
The Court noted that the appellant only became a Manager in November 2014, long after the auction was conducted.
“The appellant had no role to play in the transaction leading to the FIR... Since he was neither the authorised officer nor involved in the process, the allegations are baseless,” the bench ruled.
Calling the continuation of proceedings “abuse of process” and a “miscarriage of justice,” the Supreme Court quashed the criminal case.
Case Title: Sivakumar v. The Inspector of Police & Anr.
Case No.: SLP(Crl) Nos. 5815-5816 of 2023
