The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Guwahati businessman Sunil Kumar Verma, who sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated by Yes Bank in Kolkata over the dishonour of an electronic funds transfer linked to a loan repayment. The order, delivered by Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita on October 17, 2025, observed that such matters must proceed to trial when allegations disclose a prima facie offence.
Background
Verma had obtained multiple vehicle loans from Yes Bank between 2020 and 2023, amounting to more than ₹30 lakh. He reportedly purchased several commercial vehicles and was repaying EMIs regularly until the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted his business.
After he defaulted, Yes Bank declared the accounts as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) and filed a case before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Guwahati for recovery of ₹63.19 lakh. Meanwhile, the bank also tried to recover ₹2.04 lakh through an Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in January 2025, which bounced due to insufficient funds.
Following this, Yes Bank lodged a criminal complaint under Sections 25 and 27 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 before the 17th Judicial Magistrate, Kolkata. Verma challenged the jurisdiction of that court and alleged that no statutory demand notice had been served before filing the case.
Court’s Observations
Justice Kalita noted that the complaint contained specific accusations under Section 25(1) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, which deals with dishonoured electronic transfers. The judge remarked, “The complaint discloses an offence under the statute, and the question of notice service is a matter for trial.”
The court further clarified that even if the bank had already approached the DRT, that did not bar it from pursuing a criminal case, since civil and criminal liabilities can exist simultaneously.
Addressing the question of jurisdiction, the bench pointed out that the Yes Bank’s clearing centre for the electronic transfer was located in Kolkata, giving that court the legal authority to entertain the complaint. “Prima facie, the Judicial Magistrate’s Court at Kolkata may have jurisdiction,” the order noted.
The judge also referred to settled legal principles stating that a criminal case should not be quashed at the initial stage unless it is patently absurd or malicious. “Inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS must be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances,” the court emphasized.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Refuses to Condon Delay of 11-Year in Deepa Rani M's Appeal, Says Litigants Must
Decision
Concluding that the petition lacked merit, the Gauhati High Court declined to interfere with the criminal proceedings. “This is not a fit case where the inherent power of this Court may be invoked,” Justice Kalita said, dismissing Verma’s plea.
With this, the criminal case CS/66696/2025 pending before the 17th Judicial Magistrate in Kolkata will continue to trial, where the question of notice and other factual disputes will be examined in detail.
Case: Sunil Kumar Verma vs Yes Bank Limited and 2 Others
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 674 of 2025
Petitioner: Sunil Kumar Verma, resident of Guwahati, Assam
Respondents: Yes Bank Limited (Mumbai HQ), Senior Legal Manager (Guwahati Branch), and Sreetama Manna (Constituted Attorney)
Date of Judgment: 17 October 2025
