The Bajaj Finserv MD Case has ended with the Calcutta High Court quashing criminal proceedings against the company’s Managing Director and another corporate officer.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held that the dispute arose from a personal loan transaction. The court found that the disagreement mainly concerned loan restructuring and repayment calculations.
The Bench ruled that such commercial disputes cannot automatically become criminal cases. The prosecution must show specific evidence of criminal intent, cheating, breach of trust, or forgery.
The court delivered the ruling in Managing Director of Bajaj Finserv & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Borrower Alleged Unauthorised Loan Restructuring
The case began with a complaint filed by a borrower.
She had purchased two mobile phones through EMI schemes offered by Bajaj Finance.
She later obtained a personal loan of ₹69,000.
During the COVID-19 lockdown, she sought additional time to pay her instalments.
According to her complaint, the company later closed her existing loan account.
It allegedly opened a new loan account without her consent.
She also claimed that the company failed to credit around ₹49,000 that she had already repaid.
The borrower alleged that the company instead raised a fresh demand under the new loan account.
Bajaj Finserv Disputed the Allegations
Bajaj Finserv denied the allegations.
The company argued that the borrower herself requested the conversion of her existing liability into a new loan product.
The company also stated that the borrower authenticated the request through an automated process linked to her registered mobile number.
According to the company, the dispute concerned outstanding dues under an ongoing commercial relationship.
The company therefore argued that the matter belonged to the civil domain.
Court Examines Forgery Allegations
The High Court examined the allegations against the corporate officers.
The court noted that the complainant admitted signing the subsequent loan documents.
She claimed that she did not receive sufficient time to read the terms.
However, the court held that this allegation alone did not establish forgery.
The complaint also failed to identify a specific forged document.
It did not clearly explain how the corporate officers had allegedly fabricated any record.
The court therefore found no sufficient basis for the forgery allegations.
Criminal Law Cannot Settle Civil Disputes
Justice Mukherjee also examined the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
The court found that the complaint did not establish the essential elements of these offences.
The allegations also failed to show a shared criminal intention among the accused.
The Bajaj Finserv MD Case therefore involved a dispute that primarily concerned loan repayment and account restructuring.
The court held that the borrower could pursue appropriate civil remedies.
However, it found no basis for continuing the criminal prosecution.
Calcutta High Court Quashes Proceedings
The High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
It quashed the criminal case and all consequential proceedings.
The proceedings had remained pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampore.
The court reiterated that parties cannot routinely use criminal law to settle commercial or civil disputes.
A criminal prosecution must disclose the essential ingredients of a specific penal offence.
In the absence of such material, the court held that continuing the proceedings would be unjustified.
