Calcutta High Court quashes criminal case against Bajaj Finserv MD over loan dispute, says it is civil matter

The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the Managing Director of Bajaj Finserv and another company official in a case alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and criminal intimidation over a personal loan transaction. The court held that the allegations stemmed from a dispute over loan repayments and did not disclose any criminal offence. The borrower's grievance could be pursued through civil remedies rather than criminal prosecution.

The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the Managing Director of Bajaj Finserv and another company official in a case alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and criminal intimidation over a personal loan transaction. The court's decision is significant as it highlights the importance of distinguishing between civil and criminal matters. In this case, the court held that the allegations were purely civil in nature and did not disclose any criminal offence.

The case arose from a complaint filed by a borrower who had earlier purchased two mobile phones on equated monthly instalments (EMIs) through Bajaj Finance and had later availed a personal loan of ₹69,000 from the company. The borrower alleged that after seeking more time to pay her EMIs during the COVID-19 lockdown, the company closed her existing loan account and opened a new one without her consent. However, the court observed that the complaint was 'conspicuously silent' with regard to the nature of the documents allegedly forged by the petitioners.

The court's decision is significant as it highlights the importance of distinguishing between civil and criminal matters. In this case, the court held that the allegations were purely civil in nature and did not disclose any criminal offence. The court's observation that the borrower's complaint was 'conspicuously silent' with regard to the nature of the documents allegedly forged by the petitioners suggests that the court was looking for clear evidence of a criminal offence before quashing the proceedings.

The outcome of this matter has significant implications for lenders and borrowers in India. It highlights the importance of distinguishing between civil and criminal matters and the need for clear evidence of a criminal offence before proceeding with criminal charges. Practitioners should take note of this decision and ensure that they are aware of the distinction between civil and criminal matters.