Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Aug 2: Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Jammu Amarjeet Singh Langeh said that the bank cannot foist criminal charge on borrower and guarantor on default in repayment of loan.
An application invoking Section 156(3) of CrPC moved by IndusInd Bank Limited in case bearing title “IndusInd Bank Limited versus Swarn Manhas and Anr” seeking to register FIR against borrower and guarantor was dismissed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu Amarjeet Singh Langeh.
Complainant Bank sought registration of FIR under section 156(3) of CrPC against accused primarily on the premise that complainant bank advanced loan to accused for purchase of a vehicle in connection with which an agreement was executed between the bank and accused number 1 and thereafter complainant bank financed vehicle Hyundai Creta bearing registration number JK02BP-8555 for an amount of Rs 9 lakhs. It was further alleged that accused number 1 was required to repay the loan in 68 installments of Rs 19,400 each. Accused made a total payment of more than Rs 5 lakhs and de-faulted in making remaining payment and allegedly concealed the vehicle. Bank therefore sought registration of FIR against accused (borrower and guarantor) for offences under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 421, 422, 424 and 34 of IPC.
While rejecting the prayer of complainant bank, the court observed, “The grievance projected by complainant bank indeed is rooted in alleged failure on the part of accused number 1 to pay remaining loan amount concerning the vehicle that was allegedly financed by it”, adding, “Despite having documents like loan agreement and hypothecation deed etc available with complainant bank and instead of availing remedy available under law to enforce those deeds, complainant bank by approaching this court and seeking to invoke section 156(3) of CrPC has only displayed a penchant desire to give criminal colour and complexion to a case which is wholly civil in nature.”
Court further maintained, “The practice to convert a dispute which is pre-dominantly civil in nature, into a criminal one, is a course/practice which has been deprecated by Supreme Court time and again. As a financial institution, therefore, complainant bank is expected to follow law of land instead of showing a proclivity to foist criminal charge on borrowers instead of following remedy available under civil law.”
“The impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement also needs to be discouraged in cases like one on hand held court”, the Court observed.
With these observations, the Court dismissed the application of complainant bank as wholly misconceived and without merits.
Follow our WhatsApp channel