IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the actions of bank officers in the course of their official duty should not be considered criminal unless they meet the requirements of the alleged offenses under the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings in GR No. 803 of 2019, pending before the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas, as also the corresponding Investigational proceedings of Bidhannagar North P.S. Case No. 155/19 dated 16th October, 2019 under Sections 341/447/506/323/354/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The petitioners are the officers of IDFC First Bank Limited (Erstwhile known as Capital First Limited).

3. The opposite party no. 2 is the de facto complainant in the impugned proceedings and runs a business of Pharmaceutical Distributor in the name and style of “Puja Enterprise” situated at AE-401, Salt Lake, Sector-I, Kolkata-700 064.

4. Bidhannagar North P.S. Case no. 155 dated 16th October, 2019 had been registered on the basis of a letter of complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 before the Officer-in-Charge, Bidhannagar North Police Station, therein alleging the commission of the offences by the petitioners punishable under Sections 341/447/506/323/354/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5. The allegations leveled in the said petition of complaint are to that effect are:

(I) On 15th October, 2019, the accused persons came to the office of the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 at around 2.30 pm and mentally and physically abused him.

(II) That when his wife came to rescue him, one Mr. Belal Ahmed assaulted the wife of the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 and also tore her shirt.

(III) The de facto complainant further stated that for the purpose of the business, has taken several unsecured loans from various banks and companies, out of which IDFC Bank’s EMI was dishonoured in the month of September, 2019. However, the de facto complainant had requested the bank to grant some time in order to pay the EMI. But, the concerned accused persons without considering his request, abused him and forcefully has taken a letter from the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 about the payment of the EMI, which was dishonoured.

6. The petitioners state that for the proper appreciation of the instant case, following facts are important:

(a) The de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 and his wife have obtained two Loans from the Capital First Limited presently known as IDFC First Bank Limited vide Loan Agreement No. 11954898 dated 20th July, 2017 of Rs. 20,72,000/- and another Loan Agreement No. 18967720 dated 28th November, 2018 of Rs. 31,62,000/- in the name of “Puja Enterprise.”

(b) The de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 after obtaining the said loans, became defaulter to pay the EMIs and requested for time to pay the outstanding amount. Believing upon such representations, the concerned Bank duly gave the opportunity in order to pay the remaining dues.

(c) However, on 14th October, 2019, the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 approached the bank and requested them to come to his office to collect the remaining amount. The de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2, further assured that it will be very helpful for him to foreclose the loan and requested the bank to comply with all the formalities in order to foreclose the loan account.

(d) Believing the said representations, IDFC First Bank Limited sent its four representatives, including one of its empanelled Advocate to honour the request of the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2. On reaching the office, the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 and his wife started to use foul language and without any reason threatened them with dire consequences.

(e) The petitioners were shocked when they found out that an FIR has already been lodged before the Officer-in-charge of Bidhannagar Police Station North on concocted allegations, just in order to pressurize the Bank to come for a compromise regarding the loans which were obtained by the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 and his wife on 20th July, 2017 and