IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30255-2019 (O&M)

Reserved on : 10.02.2026 Pronounced on : 12.02.2026 ICICI Bank Limited & Ors.

..... Petitioners VERSUS Harpreet Kaur & Anr.

..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jashanpreet Singh Deol, and Mr. Rohit Suri, Advocates for the petitioner.

Ms. Pallavi Babbar, Amicus Curiae for the respondents.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This petition, under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed for quashing of complaint, bearing No.COMI-70-2018 titled as ‘Harpreet Kaur & Anr. Vs. ICICI Bank & Ors.’, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Mohali, Punjab, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that a complaint has been filed against the petitioner for the commission of offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code. In the abovementioned complaint, it has been alleged by the respondents/complainants, hereinafter being referred to as ‘respondent’ only, that the respondent had applied for housing loan from ‘Axis Bank’, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, where the concerned officials initially accepted the file charges etc. and during the process of sanctioning the loan, when CIBIL rating of the respondent was checked, the abovesaid bank found that the respondent No.1 had availed the loan facility from ‘ICICI Bank’, Industrial Area, Chandigarh and IDBI Bank, Phase 11, SAS Nagar. According to respondents, in fact the respondent No.1 had never availed any kind of loan facility from the abovementioned two bankers but despite a clarification to the abovementioned effect, the Axis Bank refused housing loan to the respondents. It has been claimed by the respondents that thereafter, the respondents approached ICICI and IDBI Bank and the officials of both the banks issued clearance certificate to the respondents.

3. According to respondents, since on account of alleged entry with regard to loan facility to the respondents by ICICI Bank and IDBI Bank, the Axis Bank has denied loan facility to the respondent No.1, it amounts to defamation as defined under Section 500 of IPC.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that instant case is a case, wherein there is total non-application of mind by the learned trial Court, while issuing summoning order. As per learned counsel for the petitioner without looking into the fact that the respondents had not availed any loan facility from the ICICI Bank and secondly, when the respondents approached tha abovementioned bank, without raising any issue, the Clearance Certificate was issued by the ICICI Bank in favour of respondents, the order of summoning of petitioner as accused has been passed. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, at any point of time, the petitioner had never reported to CIBIL authority that any loan facility was availed by the respondents and, therefore, if any wrong entry was recorded by the CIBIL authorities with regard to advancement of loan to the respondents by the petitioners, and the CIBIL rating of the respondents was adversely affected, any responsibility cannot be fastened upon the petitioner.

6. It has been further contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had never entered into any kind of dealing/transaction with the respondents and never reported anything to the CIBIL authority regarding any transaction by the respondents. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is alien to the issue, but despite that the petitioner has been dragged into a criminal litigation, which is nothing but sheer misuse of process of Court. While claiming that any of the essential ingredient meant for the commission of offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitio