Authority: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

Order Date: 29-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Thana Chariali Branch, Dibrugarh (represented by Mr. Sunil Prasad).
  • Respondents: 1) The State of Assam and 2) Ms. Manju Saikia (complainant) and 3) Mr. Bulbul Saikia (alleged fraudster).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Petition under Section 528 of the Banking Regulation Act, 2023 (BNSS) seeking quash of Criminal Complaint No. 89/2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dibrugarh.
  • Allegations in Complaint: Accusations of fraud, misrepresentation, and illegal loan sanction by the bank manager, invoking sections of the BNSS and corresponding IPC provisions.
  • Petitioner’s Arguments: No cognizable offence; the bank acted in good faith under SARFAESI Act; the complaint is a civil dispute mischaracterised as criminal; reliance on Supreme Court judgments (K. Virupaksha v. State of Karnataka, Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh) emphasizing immunity for secured creditors under Section 32 of SARFAESI Act and limited use of Section 482 CrPC.
  • Respondent’s Arguments: The trial court has not yet taken cognizance; pre‑cognizance notice under Section 223 BNSS not issued; procedural guidelines from Crl. Pet. No. 1126/2025 require recording complainant’s statement before notice to accused; thus the petition is premature.
  • Court’s Observations: The trial court indeed postponed cognizance, recording of complainant’s deposition scheduled; no pre‑cognizance notice issued to the petitioner; the matter remains at a very premature stage; quash order cannot be entertained before cognizance is taken.

Final Outcome

  • The Gauhati High Court dismissed the petition under Section 528 BNSS as “devoid of any merit,” refusing to quash the criminal complaint and leaving the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate untouched.

Topics: Legal Procedure, Banking Regulation