“ 27 . Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of law, it needs to be reiterated that the learned Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of the allegations and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. He has also to bear in mind that sending the matter would be conducive to justice, and then he may pass the requisite order . The present is a case where the accused persons are serving in high positions in the Bank. We are absolutely conscious that the position does not matter, for nobody is above the law. But the learned Magistrate should take note of the allegations in entirety, the date of the incident and whether any cognizable case is remotely made out. It is also to be noted that when a borrower of the financial institution covered under the S ARFAESI Act invokes the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC, and also there is a separate procedure under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, an attitude of more care, caution, and circumspection has to be adhered to. 28 . Issuing a direction stating “as per the application” to lodge an FIR creates a very unhealthy situation in society and also reflects the erroneous approach of the learned Magistrate. It also encourages unscrupulous and unprincipled litigants, like Respondent 3, namely, Prakash Kumar Bajaj, to take adventurous steps with courts to bring the financial institutions to their knees . As the factual exposition would reveal, Respondent 3 had prosecuted the earlier authorities, and after the matter is dealt with by the High Court in a writ petition recording a settlement, he does not withdraw the criminal case and wait for some kind of situation where he can take vengeance as if he is the emperor of all he surveys. It is interesting to note that during the tenure of Appellant 1, who is presently occupying the position of VicePresident, neither was the loan taken nor was the default made, nor was any action under the
