The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the Managing Director of Bajaj Finserv and another company official, holding that the allegations arose out of a loan repayment dispute that did not disclose the ingredients of criminal offences. Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that disagreements over adjustment of loan dues, by themselves, cannot be converted into criminal prosecution.
Background of the Case
The complaint was filed by a borrower who had previously availed consumer and personal loans from Bajaj Finance. According to the complaint, after repaying earlier loans, the borrower took a personal loan of ₹69,000. During the COVID-19 lockdown, financial difficulties allegedly prevented timely payment of EMIs. It was claimed that instead of granting an extension, the finance company converted the existing loan into another loan account and raised a fresh demand, despite substantial repayments already having been made. Based on these allegations, a criminal complaint was registered alleging offences including cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and criminal intimidation.
The company argued that the borrower had voluntarily accepted the loan conversion after understanding its terms and that the dispute related only to repayment and outstanding dues arising from an ongoing commercial relationship.
Court's Observations
After examining the complaint and the materials placed before the trial court, Justice Mukherjee found that the borrower had admitted signing the later loan agreement and that financial transactions between the parties had continued for several years.
The Court observed,
"The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature."
It further noted that the complaint did not contain specific allegations capable of establishing forgery or other criminal offences and that the grievance essentially related to the alleged demand for excess money.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be used as a shortcut to resolve civil disputes and that magistrates must carefully apply their judicial mind before issuing summons.
Decision
Allowing the criminal revision petition, the High Court held that the complaint failed to disclose sufficient grounds for prosecuting the petitioners under the provisions invoked. It also observed that the inquiry conducted before issuance of summons had not been carried out in the manner required by law.
Consequently, the Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the pending criminal proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampore.
Case Details
Case Title: Managing Director of Bajaj Finserv & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: CRR 2494 of 2025
Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
Decision Date: 21 July 2026
