Icici Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma & Ors  INSC 939 (15 May 2008)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPEALLTE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008.
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.
4935 of 2006] ICICI Bank .. Appellant Versus Shanti Devi Sharma & Others ..
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against
the order dated 13th July, 2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ
Petition (Criminal) No. 576 of 2006 and order dated 11th August, 2006 1 passed
in Crl. M. A. Nos. 8093-94/2006 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 576 of 2006.
3. The question that arises in
this case in narrow compass:
Should part of the impugned
judgment be expunged so that it may not adversely influence on an ongoing
criminal investigation? The respondent filed a criminal writ petition number
576 of 2006 with the Delhi High Court. Vide this writ petition, the respondents
sought a writ of mandamus that would direct the Commissioner of Police to take
action against the appellant bank. Respondent no.1 alleged that her son
committed suicide as a result of the manner in which the bank's recovery agents
had repossessed her son's motorcycle. In the first information report (F.I.R.)
dated 29.11.2005, the respondent alleged that on 16th October, 2005 at about
1.00 p.m., two recovery agents (referred to as "goons") forcibly
entered her son's bedroom and started harassing and humiliating him for the
loan payments that were overdue on his two wheeler and on his personal loan.
4. According to respondent no. 1,
they repossessed the vehicle taken in the presence of his friends who ridiculed
him for having lost the motorcycle. It is further mentioned in the FIR that the
deceased had used his motorcycle to get vegetables for his small restaurant. It
is also alleged that the deceased had to carry the vegetables on his back in
the absence of his motorcycle. Upon finding the deceased carrying vegetables on
his back, members of the neighborhood allegedly made snide comments. The
deceased finally broke down before his wife and allegedly stated that he had
never faced such a humiliation and disgrace in his entire life. On that very
day, while his wife was washing clothes, the deceased went inside the small
inner room and hung himself to death. We reiterate that this version of the
events is found in the FIR and is thus an allegation at this time.
5. To ascertain the veracity of
these assertions, the High Court ordered the Police to file reports as to the
status of the investigation against the bank. The High Court later reviewed the
3 two status reports that were filed by the Police. It found them
unsatisfactory and accordingly, the High Court directed the Investigating
"conclude the investigation
into the matter as expeditiously as possible and take necessary action against
those who may be found guilty of abetting the deceased to commit suicide."
In addition, the High Court stated
"Para 1: "... the
vehicle for which the loan was taken was repossessed by the musclemen employed
by ICICI Bank.
Para 3: "...the proximate
cause of death of the deceased that led him to commit suicide was on account of
humiliation caused by the Bank people from where loan was taken by him."
Para 4: "The modus-operandi
employed by the banks like ICICI for realization of their loan amount and for
recovering the possession of the vehicle against which loans are given is extra
legal and by no stretch of imagination they can be permitted to employ
musclemen and goons for recovery of their dues even from a defaulting party."
6. The appellant bank claimed that
it was aggrieved by the observations made by the High Court in paragraphs 1, 3
& 4 of 4 the impugned order. The bank asked the High Court to clarify or
delete paras 1, 3 and 4. It did so by way of an application for impleadment as
well as an application for clarification/deletion/modification under section
482 (saving of inherent power of High Court) of the Criminal Code of Procedure,
1973. According to the appellant bank, the observations made by the High Court
were unjustified and unnecessary for deciding the case.
7. In an order dated 11.8.2006,
the High Court declined to expunge the impugned observations because it had
made them "... consciously and there are no reasons to expunge the
Nevertheless, the High Court clarified
the matter by stating as under:
"However, it is clarified
that any observation made against ICICI Bank in the order passed by this Court
on 13.07.2006 shall not influence or affect the proceedings, if any, taken
against the said bank or its employees."
8. Given that the investigation
had not been completed, the High Court could have prefaced its observations by
stating that 5 the facts were alleged. It did, however, note that "...
perusal of the complaint would reveal that the proximate cause of death ...
was on account of humiliation
caused by the Bank people ... ."
Reference to the
"complaint" implies that its contents contain allegations, not facts.
Moreover, the investigation was ongoing.
Thus, it should have been
understood that the High Court was referring to alleged facts. That said, the
court could have been more careful to note that the facts that it discussed
Recognizing as much, the court
clarified that its observations were not to influence or affect the
9. We reiterate the same. They
will have no bearing on the ongoing investigation. Given this clarification, we
do not feel that the appellant bank has been substantially aggrieved. Nor do we
believe that expunging the impugned observations would have much of an effect.
Under either scenario, having the observations expunged or having them
clarified, no one can rely on the observations.
10. As mentioned, the
investigation is ongoing. Neither the High Court's order nor the observations
made herein are to influence the investigation, save the time period in which
it must be completed. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to remind financial
institutions that they are bound by law. The recovery of loans or seizure of
vehicles can only be done through legal means.
11. The Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 ("SARFAESI") and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002
("SIER") framed thereunder provide some of the procedures by which
security interests may be recovered. In addition to SARFAESI and SIER, the
Reserve Bank of India ("RBI") has promulgated Guidelines on the
subject. The RBI Guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Lenders dated 5.5.2003
provides at (v)(c) that: "In the matter of recovery of loans, the lenders
should not resort to undue harassment viz. persistently bothering the borrowers
at odd hours, use of muscle power for recovery of loans, etc."
12. A more comprehensive version
of these Guidelines was recently released on April 24, 2008. The Guidelines
expressly reference the 5.5.2003 Guidelines at (i)(x) with regard to the
methods by which recovery agents collect on security interests. In addition,
the April 24, 2008 Guidelines further referred paragraph 6 of the "Code of
Bank's Commitment to Customers" (BCSBI Code) pertaining to collection of
The BCSBI Code at para 6 inter
"All the members of the staff
or any person authorized to represent our bank in collection or/and security
repossession would follow the guidelines set out below:
You would be
contacted ordinarily at the place of your choice and in the absence of any
specified place at the place of your residence and if unavailable at your
residence, at the place of business/occupation.
authority to represent would be made known to you at the first instance.
would be respected.
with you would be in a civil manner.
Normally our representatives
will contact you between 0700 hours and 1900 hrs, unless the special
circumstances of your business or occupation require otherwise. 8
requests to avoid calls at a particular time or at a particular place would be
honored as far as possible.
number of calls and contents of conversation would be documented.
assistance would be given to resolve disputes or differences regarding dues in a
mutually acceptable and in an orderly manner.
visits to your place for dues collection, decency and decorum would be
Inappropriate occasions such as bereavement in the family or such other
calamitous occasions would be avoided for making calls/visits to collect dues.
As noted above, this Code as well
as others has been incorporated into the April 24, 2008 Guidelines:
"(ix) A reference is invited
to (a) Circular DBOD.Leg.No.BC.104/ 09.07.007 /2002-03 dated May 5, 2003
regarding Guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Lenders (b) Circular
DBOD.No.BP. 40/ 21.04.158/ 2006-07 dated November 3, 2006 regarding outsourcing
of financial services and (c) Master Circular DBOD.FSD.BC.17/ 24.01.011/2007-
08 dated July 2, 2007 on Credit Card Operations.
Further, a reference is also
invited to paragraph 6 of the 'Code of Bank's Commitment to Customers' (BCSBI
Code) pertaining to collection of dues. Banks are advised to strictly adhere to
the guidelines / code 9 mentioned above during the loan recovery process."
13. RBI has expressed its concern
about the number of litigations filed against the banks in the recent past for
engaging recovery agents who have purportedly violated the law. In the letter
accompanying its April 24th, 2008 Guidelines on Engagement of Recovery Agents,
RBI stated: "In view of the rise in the number of disputes and litigations
against banks for engaging recovery agents in the recent past, it is felt that
the adverse publicity would result in serious reputational risk for the banking
sector as a whole." RBI has taken this issue seriously, as evidenced by
the penalty that banks could face if they fail to comply with the Guidelines.
The relevant portion of the Guidelines formulated by RBI is set out as under:
"3. Banks, as principals, are
responsible for the actions of their agents. Hence, they should ensure that
their agents engaged for recovery of their dues should strictly adhere to the
above guidelines and instructions, including the BCSBI Code, while engaged in
the process of recovery of dues.
4. Complaints received by Reserve
Bank 10 regarding violation of the above guidelines and adoption of abusive
practices followed by banks' recovery agents would be viewed seriously. Reserve
Bank may consider imposing a ban on a bank from engaging recovery agents in a
particular area, either jurisdictional or functional, for a limited period. In
case of persistent breach of above guidelines, Reserve Bank may consider
extending the period of ban or the area of ban. Similar supervisory action
could be attracted when the High Courts or the Supreme Court pass strictures or
impose penalties against any bank or its Directors/ Officers/ agents with
regard to policy, practice and procedure related to the recovery process.
5. It is expected that banks
would, in the normal course ensure that their employees or agents also adhere
to the above guidelines during the loan recovery process."
14. We deem it appropriate to
remind the banks and other financial institutions that we live in a civilized
country and are governed by the rule of law.
15. Looking to the gravity of the
above allegations, we expect that the matter will be investigated as
expeditiously as possible and, in any event, it must be concluded within a
period of three months and, thereafter, the concerned Deputy Commissioner of
Police is directed to submit the report of the investigation in the 11 High
16. In the facts and circumstances
of this case we direct the appellant to pay costs of this litigation to the
respondents which is quantified as Rs.25000/-. The costs be paid within three
weeks. We direct that the matter be listed before the High Court after the
report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police is filed.
17. This appeal is accordingly
(Dalveer Bhandari) New Delhi;