Unified Chambers
Loading
Yes. CrPC continues to govern all cases and proceedings that were initiated before 1 July 2024. Given the volume of pending NI Act cheque bounce cases, DRT-related criminal complaints, and banking fraud FIRs registered before July 2024, CrPC will remain practically relevant in courts for years to come. Advocates must be conversant with both CrPC and BNSS depending on when the case was registered.
When borrowers file frivolous FIRs against bank officials conducting lawful SARFAESI enforcement, banks file petitions under CrPC Section 482 (now BNSS S.528) to quash these FIRs. Courts have consistently held that enforcement of security interest under SARFAESI — following the prescribed procedure — is a lawful act, and FIRs registered against bank officials for such enforcement constitute an abuse of process. The High Court quashes such FIRs under S.482/S.528. This protection is especially important for Recovery Officers and enforcement agents.
When police refuse to register an FIR in a banking fraud case, banks can file a petition under CrPC Section 156(3) (now BNSS S.175) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The petition details the fraud, the demand for investigation, and the police's refusal. The Magistrate can then direct the police to investigate. After the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2014), police cannot legally refuse to register FIRs for cognisable offences — any refusal is itself subject to challenge. Banks should accompany the Section 156(3) petition with complete documentary evidence of the fraud (loan account statement, forged documents, loss assessment) to strengthen the case for a Magistrate direction.
CrPC Section 438 (now BNSS S.482) anticipatory bail is sought before arrest when a person has reason to believe they may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. In banking fraud cases, borrowers and directors whose FIRs have been registered (but who have not yet been arrested) typically approach the Sessions Court or High Court for anticipatory bail. The court considers: (i) nature and gravity of the accusation (scale of fraud, number of victims); (ii) antecedents of the applicant (prior criminal record, behaviour during investigation); (iii) possibility of fleeing justice (NRI status, overseas assets, passport); (iv) whether the FIR is a legitimate criminal complaint or a civil dispute being criminalised. Banks opposing AB should file a counter-affidavit with full details of the fraud, evidence of asset dissipation, and flight risk indicators.
After police file the charge sheet (police report under CrPC S.173) in a banking fraud case, the following sequence occurs: (1) The Magistrate examines the charge sheet to decide whether to take cognizance; (2) If cognizance is taken, the Magistrate issues summons or warrants against the accused; (3) The accused appears before the court; (4) The Magistrate or Sessions Court frames charges (CrPC S.240) after hearing both sides; (5) The accused pleads guilty or not guilty — if guilty, sentence is passed; if not guilty, trial begins; (6) Trial: prosecution evidence → defence cross-examination → defence evidence → arguments → judgment. In complex banking fraud cases (₹100 crore+ fraud), the trial can take 5-10 years. The accused typically apply for bail at each stage, and banks must actively oppose bail applications that pose flight or dissipation risks.
Whether you need to file or oppose bail under CrPC S.438 / BNSS S.482, or quash a frivolous FIR under CrPC S.482 / BNSS S.528 — Our team provides specialist banking criminal defence counsel.