HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6448 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 25.9.2024 passed by the Special Judge (S.C. / S.T Act), Hathras in Complaint Case No. 452 of 2023; Rajendra Singh Versus Nikhil Mahajan and others by which the application filed by the revisionist has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the learned Special Judge (S.C. / S.T Act), Hathras without going into the correct facts and the series of events related to the incident has passed the order, which is liable to be set aside. Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are the officials of a finance company, in the name and style of M/s Mahajan Finance, situated at Parag Mill Compound, Ramghat Road, Aligarh. It is further submitted that the revisionist had taken loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the finance company for purchasing a vehicle DCM LPT 1109. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submits that the revisionist was regularly paying installments. However, sometimes in the year, 2021-22 revisionist also made payment to the opposite party but no receipts, whatsoever, was given by the officials of the company and on demanding the said receipts, revisionist was threatened and was abused hurling caste related remarks. He has further submitted that the said compliant has been dismissed without looking into the statements of the complainant (revisionist herein) and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, wherein the revisionist and another witnesses have categorically stated about the occurrence of the said incident, but without Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rajat Agarwal, Vikash Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajai Mani Tiwari, G.A. Rajendra Singh .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) taking cognizance of the fact that such incident had taken place, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application under Section 203 CrPC, hence the present revision. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submits that the dispute relates to loan taken by the revisionist for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- for purchase of vehicle and after paying few installments, he stopped making repayment of loan and still the said loan is outstanding and no payment has been made after the year, 2021 and still the revisionist is enjoying the vehicle and using the same and the said vehicle is in the custody of the revisionist. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava Versus State of U. P. and others reported in AIR 2015 SC 1758, which relates to similar transactions in respect of the finance company and the criminal action taken against the officials of the finance company. The relevant part is as under: "28. The present lis can be perceived from another angle. We are slightly surprised that the financial institution has been compelled to settle the dispute and we are also disposed to think that it has so happened because the complaint cases were filed. Such a situation should not happen. 29. At this juncture, we may fruitfully refer to Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, which reads as follows: "32. Protection of action taken in good faith.- No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any secured creditor or any of his officers or manager exercising any of the rights of the secured creditor or borrower for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith under this Act." 30. In the present case, we are obligated to say that learned Magistrate should have kept himself alive to the aforesaid provision before venturing into directing registration of the FIR under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It is because the Parliament in its wisdom has made such a provision to protect the secured creditors or any of its officers, and needles to emphasize, the legislative mandate, has to be kept in mind." 6. Learned AGA has also adopted the arguments advanced by learned CRLR No. 6448 of 2024 2 counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 7. From the facts and circumstances, it is clear that the revisionist after obtaining loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- stopped making repayment midway and contrarily is trying to lodge criminal case against the officials of the finance company and is also enjoying the vehicle and had the revisionist been repaying the installments regularly, the question of any dispute would not have arisen between the parties, but in order to evade the liability of not paying the installments, the revisionist is trying to drag the officials of the finance company into litigation, that too in criminal litigation, by involving the officials of the finance company in false incident. 8. Having regard to the fact that the revisionist himself did not repay the entire loan, rather preferred to lodge false and frivolous criminal complaint against the officials of the finance company, which is uncalled for in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra), no case for interference, with the impugned order is made out. 9. Hence, revision is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed with the cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the revisionist to High Court Legal Service Committee within two months from today. September 19, 2025 HR CRLR No. 6448 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad