IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE C.R.R. 2104 of 2012 Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.

Vs.

Pramod Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly Mr. A.K. Usmani Mr. Nazir Ahmed Mr. Tahidul Islam Ms. Ayesha Islam For the opposite party : Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta Ms. Sofia Nesar Mr. Santanu Sett Heard on : 12.02.2025 Judgment on : 20.02.2025 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee , J.:

1. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred challenging impugned proceeding being Case no. CR 523 of 2011, presently pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 5th Court Serampore, Hooghly.

2. Mr. Ganguly ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that sometimes in the month of November, 2007 the opposite party herein/complainant had approached the petitioner company for the grant of personal loan for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by entering into a personal loan cum guarantee agreement with the said company. The petitioner company accordingly sanctioned and disbursed principal loan amount of Rs, 50,000/- to the opposite party/complainant in terms of agreement dated 24th November, 2007. Under the said agreement the opposite party/ complainant agreed to pay the principal loan amount along with interest in 36 monthly installments, each of Rs. 2,706/-. By virtue of the said personal loan cum guarantee agreement, the opposite party/complainant gave cheques in discharge of his liability towards repayment of the said loan.

3. It has been alleged by the petitioner that as per terms and conditions of the said agreement, the opposite party/complainant was to pay 36 monthly installments but only 7 installments were paid, out of which 2 installments through ECS and 5 installments by cash. But inspite of repeated requests the opposite party /complainant deliberately failed and neglected and refused to make payment of the monthly installments in the manner and within the time, stipulated in the said agreement and as such the petitioner company pursuant to the rights conferred under the said agreement presented the said cheques issued by opposite party/ complainant in discharge of his liability for encashment and recovery of the amount.

4. However, on presentation of said cheques by the petitioner to its banker, the said cheques got dishonored on the ground of ‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter, the petitioner company issued demand notice to the opposite party/complainant for making payment of the said amount but inspite of receiving the notice, the opposite party/complainant did not pay heed to make payment within the time asked in the said demand notice.

5. As a consequence, petitioner company initiated proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short N.I. Act) against the opposite party/complainant herein before learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bangalore, which was registered as complaint case no. 37105 of 2008, wherein learned Magistrate Bangalore, was pleased to issue process against the opposite party/complainant and on his failure to appear before the learned Magistrate, a warrant of arrest (in short W/A) was issued against opposite party herein and on the strength of W/A the opposite party/complainant was arrested and thereafter released on bail.

6. Mr. Gangully further submits that challenging the said proceeding being no. 37105 of 2008, the complainant/opposite party herein preferred an Application before the Hon’ble High Court, Karnataka at Bangalore vide Criminal Petition no. 5489 of 2011 and the High Court by an order dated 1st February, 2012 was pleased to dispose of the same with the direction upon Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bangalore, to return the complaint as per provision of section 201 (a) of the Cr.P.C. for presenting the same before appropriate forum.

7. In the present complaint lodged under section 500 of IPC, the complainant/opposite party herein has made the petitioner