Gauhati High Court: In a petition under Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of Complaint Case No. 89/2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dibrugarh, against the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Thana Chariali Branch, Dibrugarh, the Single Bench of Mitali Thakuria, J., held that the petition was at a premature stage as the trial court had neither completed recording of the complainant and witnesses nor taken cognizance of the complaint. The complaint alleged cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust over a property that was allegedly already mortgaged to Indian Bank when a loan was taken against it from SBI. Declining to examine the merits, the Court dismissed the petition.
Background
The dispute arose from a loan obtained from SBI by Respondent 3, son of the deceased, in respect of property which, according to the complainant, had already been mortgaged with Indian Bank by her deceased husband. The complainant alleged that she became aware of the loan only upon receiving notice from the Bank and thereafter instituted a title suit. She subsequently filed Complaint Case No. 89/2025 before the JMFC, Dibrugarh, alleging offences under various provisions of the BNS against Respondent 3 and the SBI Branch Manager, inter alia, alleging cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust.
The SBI Branch Manager approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, contending that the complaint disclosed no prima facie offence against him and that the Bank had itself been induced into granting the loan on the basis of the documents produced by Respondent 3. The complainant opposed the plea as premature, pointing out that the trial court had not yet taken cognizance and, pursuant to its order dated 16 February 2026, was still recording the complainant’s and witnesses’ statements before proceeding further under Sections 226 and 223(1) BNSS.
The petitioner contended that the complaint disclosed no allegation of forgery or cheating against him and that the Bank, which had granted the loan on the inducement of Respondent 3, was itself a victim. He submitted that the dispute was essentially civil, and that the complainant had suppressed the SARFAESI notice and filed the complaint with mala fide intent to stall the SARFAESI proceedings after her civil suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Analysis and decision
The Court noted that the petitioner was a financial institution arrayed as Accused 2 and that SARFAESI notice had already been issued to the complainant in respect of the mortgaged property. Though there was prima facie a civil dispute between the parties, the trial court had not yet taken cognizance against the petitioner. While an initial pre-cognizance notice had been issued, pursuant to the guidelines in Criminal Petition No. 1126/2025, the trial court, by order dated 16 February 2026, had fixed the matter only for recording the initial depositions of the complainant and witnesses, if any.
The Court further noted that the statements had not yet been completed. Such recording was necessary for arriving at a conclusion under Section 226 BNSS, following which pre-cognizance notice could be issued under Section 223(1) BNSS. Since neither cognizance had been taken nor any subsequent pre-cognizance notice had been issued to the petitioner, the Court observed that the petitioner would have ample opportunity to place his case before the trial court before cognizance was taken.
The Court held that the proceedings were at a very premature stage for exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS, as the trial court had neither taken cognizance by applying its judicial mind under Section 226 or Section 223(1) BNSS nor completed the pre-cognizance process. Without entering into the merits of the case, the Court declined to quash Complaint Case No. 89/2025 or the subsequent proceedings against the petitioner and dismissed the criminal petition as devoid of merit.
[SBI v. State of Assam, 2026 SCC OnLine Gau 6681, decided on 29-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: B K Sen, F. Shahin, P Singh, N Hasan, MR A Hussain
For the respondent: PP, Assam, A R Ansari (R-2),MR. S Mitra (R-2),MR. A K Boro (R-2)
