1 CGHC010020482022 2026:CGHC:31197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 506 of 2022 1 - Narendra Kumar Kaushik S/o Late Shri Roop Chand Kaushik Aged About 52 Years R/o Hig 33 Arya Colony, Tifra, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Mobile 8109555559, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Equitas Small Finance Bank Private Limited Indu Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through- Branch Manager, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Station House Officer, Police Station Dharsinva, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State :- Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Order On Board 22.07.2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Pre-sale letter dated 26/10/2021 (Ann.P-2) issued by respondent No.1, and consequently sale if done by respondent No.1. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 and 3 to take action under Section 394 of IPC against the respondent No. 1 in view of circular (Ann.P-5) and Guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to grant any other relief or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case alongwith cost of the instant litigation, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner has been illegally taken away by the respondent Bank by using force and without following the procedure established under law. It is submitted that the petitioner has already paid substantial amounts towards the loan account and, therefore, unless and until the due process of law is followed, the respondent Bank cannot resort to forcible repossession of the vehicle by applying muscle power. It is, thus, prayed that appropriate relief may be granted to the petitioner. 3 3. Learned State counsel appearing for the State submits that the FIR lodged in the matter has already been closed under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that, in view of such closure, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a complaint case before the competent authority/court in accordance with law. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the record and the relief sought by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent financial company, pursuant to which loan facility was extended for purchase of the vehicle. If the terms and conditions of the said agreement have not been complied with, and the petitioner has any grievance regarding commission of any criminal act by the respondent Bank/financial institution, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned police authorities for registration of an appropriate FIR. In case of any difficulty or hindrance in lodging the FIR, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the remedy of filing an appropriate complaint case before the competent Court in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha