Calcutta High Court’s Verdict on Bajaj Finserv Loan Dispute
The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed criminal proceedings against the Managing Director of Bajaj Finserv and another company official, stemming from allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and criminal intimidation related to a personal loan transaction. This decision was rendered in the case titled Managing Director of Bajaj Finserv & Anr. v The State of West Bengal & Anr. by Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee.
The court found that the allegations were rooted in a dispute over loan repayment adjustments and the amounts claimed by the finance company, which did not constitute any criminal offense. Justice Mukherjee emphasized that the borrower’s complaints could be addressed through civil litigation rather than criminal prosecution.
“The complaint is conspicuously silent regarding the nature of the documents allegedly forged by the petitioners and their specific role in manufacturing or forging any such documents. The essence of common intention to commit an illegal act before or after the offense has not been stated by OP No.2 (the borrower). Therefore, the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature,” Justice Mukherjee observed.
Details of the Complaint
The borrower, who had previously purchased two mobile phones on equated monthly installments (EMIs) through Bajaj Finance and taken a personal loan of ₹69,000, alleged that during the COVID-19 lockdown, Bajaj Finance closed her existing loan account and opened a new one without her consent. She claimed that the company failed to account for nearly ₹49,000 she had repaid and subsequently raised a fresh demand under the new loan account.
Bajaj Finserv’s Defense
Bajaj Finserv countered these allegations by asserting that the borrower had requested the conversion of the loan into another product, a request authenticated via her registered mobile number. The company argued that the dispute centered on outstanding dues from an ongoing commercial relationship, which did not amount to criminal activity.
More Read
The court agreed with Bajaj Finserv’s arguments, stating that the materials presented showed, at most, a disagreement over loan payment adjustments. “While there might be a conflict between the parties regarding the adjustment of the loan amount, I am unable to appreciate the petitioners’ contention that it attracts any criminality, as a penal statute cannot be expanded by using implications,” the court noted.
Conclusion of the Case
The court observed that the complainant admitted to signing the subsequent loan agreement, albeit without reading its contents. Nonetheless, this did not constitute forgery, especially when no specific forged document was identified, nor was the role of the accused in creating such a document specified.
Upon finding no prima facie case of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, or criminal intimidation, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampore.
More Read
Advocates Pratim Priya Dasgupta, Om Srivastava, Amit Dey, and Swastik Polley represented the Managing Director of Bajaj Finserv, while Advocates Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya and Swarnali Saha represented the borrower.
