Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Calcutta High Court recently quashed the criminal charges for trespass and intimidation against an ICICI Bank debt management who had visited a credit card holder's home in connection with unpaid dues.

The court said, “If every Authorised Officer of a bank/institution has to face criminal charges levelled by a defaulter, for acting in accordance with the law, then it is clearly an abuse of the process of law and such proceeding should not be allowed to continue in the interest of justice.”

The Single judge bench of Justice Shampa Dutt Paul was dealing with a revision petition for quashing the complaint case of 2019 under sections 447/448/384/504/509/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before Judicial Magistrate South 24 Parganas.

The petitioner submitted that he was working with ICICI Bank Limited which is a public listed company, as Debt Manager from its office at 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata under the personal loan department.

The complainant was a Credit Card holder of ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank and he had been paying necessary monthly EMI to HDFC Bank till October 2019. The complainant was suffering from an acute crunch and it was difficult for him to pay the amounts to banks.

On December 17, 2019, petitioners allegedly criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant and demanded extortion money of Rs.1,20,000/- and on protest by the complainant, the accused persons became furious and abused the opposite party.

The advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complainant had unvaryingly utilised the said Credit Card bearing Number 5241933213358005, to borrow money from ICICI Bank Limited and to make payments for purchases made or services obtained by the opposite party from third parties, On the other hand, complainant systematically neglected to make payment towards huge due amounts in respect of his aforesaid credit card account and instead on occasional months, paid only a fraction of the outstanding dues.

Further, the advocate submitted that the instant impugned proceeding is a product of a manifest belated afterthought complainant, falsely improvised in an attempt to create a smokescreen against the huge outstanding dues of the complainant towards ICICI Bank Limited.

The court noted that in spite of f due service, there is no representation on behalf of the complainant.

Justice Paul noted, “Petitioner being the Debt Manager of the bank's separate wing, with appropriate training as per RBI guidelines to facilitate the bank in its recovery process, allegedly went to the house of the complainant on 17.12.2019 at 2 pm to recover the bank's dues which are part of his job profile.”

“Considering the time to be 2 pm, it is apparent that the petitioner did not intend to act in an unlawful manner,” the court added.

Further, the court added that the outstanding dues of the complainant is admitted. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner was in due course of his official duty and he has been empowered to do so as per RBI Guidelines.

The court quashed the complaint case of 2019 pending before Judicial Magistrate South 24 Parganas while allowing the present revision application.

Case Title: Tushar Manna vs Ananda Sarkar