015 SC 1758 , 2015 (2 )AJR837 , 2021 (1 ) ALD(Crl.) 598 (SC ), 2015 (3 ) ALT (Crl.) 26 (SC), II (2015 )CCR168 (SC ), 2015 CriLJ2396 , 2015 (2 )Crimes179 (SC ), 2015 (2 )Crimes209 (SC ), 2015 (3 )CTC103 , 2015 (2 )ECrN (NULL ) 680 , 2015 INSC 239 , 2015 (2 )J.L.J.R.496 , 2015 (2 )J.L.J.R.496 , 2015 (2 )JCC974 , 2015 (2 )KLJ491 , 2015 (2 )KLT451 , 2016 -1 -LW354 , 2016 -1 -LW(Crl)106 , 2016 (1 )N.C.C.261 , 2015 (3 )PLJR78 , 2015 (2 )RCR(Criminal)1034 , 2015 (3 )RLW2404 (SC ), 2015 (4 )SCALE120 , (2015 )6 SCC287 , 2015 (5 ) SCJ 259 , [2015 ]130 SCL472 (SC ), [2015 ]4 SCR108 , ,MANU/SC/0344/2015Dipak Misra#Prafulla C. Pant#2697SC3250Judgment/OrderAD#AIR#AJR#ALD(Cri)#ALT (Criminal)#CCR#CriLJ#Crimes#Crimes#CTC#ECrN#INSC#JLJR#JLJR#JCC#KLJ#KLT#LW#LW(Criminal)#MANU#NCC#PLJR#RCR (Criminal)#RLW#SCALE#SCC#SCJ#SCL#SCRDipak Misra,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2015-3-2626277,26281,16630,22925,16002,16371,16632,16633,16635,16866,17483,15963,16341,16582,16312,16314,16315,16318,16225,15817,15913,15956,16369,26302,16618,16599,16580,16583,17163 -->

MANU/SC/0344/2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 781 of 2012

Decided On: 19.03.2015

Appellants: Priyanka Srivastava and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

1. The present appeal projects and frescoes a scenario which is not only disturbing but also has the potentiality to create a stir compelling one to ponder in a perturbed state how some unscrupulous, unprincipled and deviant litigants can ingeniously and innovatively design in a nonchalant manner to knock at the doors of the Court, as if, it is a laboratory where multifarious experiments can take place and such skillful persons can adroitly abuse the process of the Court at their own will and desire by painting a canvas of agony by assiduous assertions made in the application though the real intention is to harass the statutory authorities, without any remote remorse, with the inventive design primarily to create a mental pressure on the said officials as individuals, for they would not like to be dragged to a court of law to face in criminal cases, and further pressurize in such a fashion so that financial institution which they represent would ultimately be constrained to accept the request for "one-time settlement" with the fond hope that the obstinate defaulters who had borrowed money from it would withdraw the cases instituted against them. The facts, as we proceed to adumbrate, would graphically reveal how such persons, pretentiously aggrieved but potentially dangerous, adopt the self-convincing mastery methods to achieve so. That is the sad and unfortunate factual score forming the fulcrum of the case at hand, and, we painfully recount.

2. The facts which need to be stated are that the Respondent No. 3, namely, Prakash Kumar Bajaj, son of Pradeep Kumar Bajaj, had availed a housing loan from the financial institution, namely, Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited (PNBHFL) on 21st January, 2001, vide housing loan account No. IHL-583. The loan was taken in the name of the Respondent No. 3 and his wife, namely, Jyotsana Bajaj. As there was default in consecutive payment of the installments, the loan account was treated as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Reserve Bank of India. The authorities of the financial institution issued notice to the borrowers Under Section 13(2) of the Se........