Calcutta High Court quashes criminal case against bank officials who visited couple to foreclose loan

The Calcutta High Court on Friday quashed a criminal case lodged against officials of IDFC Bank who were booked under charges of criminal intimidation, outraging modesty etc while recovering a loan taken by a couple [Tanisha Chanda v. State of West Bengal].

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) said officials of an institution cannot be made to face criminal charge even for acting as per law.

"If Authorised Officers of a bank/institution have to face criminal charge, for acting in accordance with 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 judge observed.

The Court, therefore, quashed a First Information Report (FIR) and consequent proceedings initiated against the officials.

As per the FIR, the complainant couple had taken a loan for their pharmacy business. However, when they defaulted in paying the Equated Monthly Instalment (EMI), the bank asked them to foreclose the loan. The couple agreed to foreclose the loan and asked the bank officials to visit their house for further formalities.

It was alleged by the complainant couple that the bank officials, after entering their house, started abusing the couple mentally and even physically. One of the officials allegedly tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant's wife by tearing her shirt. The couple also contended that the officials barged into their house at an odd hour with criminal intent.

The officials were accordingly booked under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 447 (criminal trespass), 506 (criminal intimidation), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 354 (outraging modesty of a woman), 509 (known person insults a woman's modesty) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

On the other hand, the bank officials contended that when they reached the couple's house, the couple started using foul language against them. The officials alleged that the couple had already lodged another case against the officials, even before they went to their house, only to deter the bank from recovering the loan amount.

The Court said that the bank officials were doing their job and that the time at which they went to the complainant’s house was also appropriate.

"Considering the time to be 2:30 PM, it is apparent that the petitioners did not intend to act in an unlawful manner. The outstanding dues of the complainant is admitted. Thus, the conduct of the petitioners was in due course of their official duty. The present case has been filed against the officers of a Bank (in official capacity), one of them being a woman."

The judge further held that none of the ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged against the bank officials are applicable, as they acted in accordance with law in their official capacity.

The Court, therefore, quashed the FIR and the proceedings.

Advocates Debangan Bhattacharya, Ranjit Singh and Tutul Das appeared for the bank officials.

Advocates Sudip Ghosh and Bitasok Banerjee represented the State.

[Read order]