Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard Criminal Appeal No. 781 of 2012 filed by Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and Another against the State of U.P. and Others. The judgment, authored by Justice Dipak Misra, opens with strong observations about unscrupulous litigants who abuse the judicial process. The Court noted a disturbing scenario where deviant litigants ingeniously exploit court procedures to harass statutory authorities and officials of financial institutions. The objective is to create mental pressure on these officials, who represent entities like banks, so that the financial institution is compelled to accept a 'one-time settlement' with defaulters. The litigants paint a false canvas of agony to knock at the doors of the Court, while their real intention is to force withdrawal of cases filed against them. The Court characterized such persons as 'pretentiously aggrieved but potentially dangerous' who adopt self-convincing mastery methods to achieve their ends. The factual matrix reveals that Respondent No. 3, Prakash Kumar Bajaj, had availed a housing loan from Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited (PNBHFL) on 21 January 2001, vide housing loan account No. IHL-583. Beyond this, the provided text fragment ends abruptly and does not include the complete facts, legal issues, arguments, analysis, or the final decision of the Court. Therefore, a comprehensive summary of the entire judgment cannot be constructed from the available excerpt. The extract focuses on the Court's general condemnation of abuse of process, but the specific outcome and legal principles remain unstated.
Issue of Consideration
Case Details
2015 LawText (SC) (03) 101
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.781 OF 2012
Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal involving alleged abuse of court process by loan defaulters to harass financial institution officials and secure one-time settlements.
Judgment Excerpts
The present appeal projects and frescoes a scenario which is not only disturbing but also has the potentiality to create a stir compelling one to ponder in a perturbed state how some unscrupulous, unprincipled and deviant litigants can ingeniously and innovatively design in a nonchalant manner to knock at the doors of the Court, as if, it is a laboratory where multifarious experiments can take place and such skillful persons can adroitly abuse the process of the Court at their own will and desire by painting a canvas of agony by assiduous assertions made in the application though the real intention is to harass the statutory authorities, without any remote remorse, with the inventive design primarily to create a mental pressure on the said officials as individuals, for they would not like to be dragged to a court of law to face in criminal cases, and further pressurize in such a fashion so that financial institution which they represent would ultimately be constrained to accept the request for “one-time settlement” with the fond hope that the obstinate defaulters who had borrowed money from it would withdraw the cases instituted against them.
respondent No.3, namely, Prakash Kumar Bajaj, son of Pradeep Kumar Bajaj, had availed a housing loan from the financial institution, namely, Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited (PNBHFL) on 21st January, 2001, vide housing loan account No.IHL-583.
