1 2025:CGHC:48466 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5047 of 2025 1 - Manoj Kumar Sinha S/o Bhikham Sinha Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 93 Ward No. 06 School Para Village - Pandaripani, Kanker (C.G.) 2 - Darasvatti Bhuarya D/o Harishchandra Bhuarya Aged About 33 Years R/o 15, Bargaon, Hatkondal, Hatkondal, P.O. - Hatkondal, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 3 - Jamira Bhagat W/o Krishna Korram Aged About 56 Years R/o 70 F.D.H Kankalin Para, Kanker, Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Tamesh Kumar Sinha S/o Pratap Ram Sinha, Aged About 37 Years R/o 166, Purana Awas Para, Narharpur, Tehsil - Narharpur, Kanker (C.G.) 5 - Sunil Kumar Vadde S/o Laxman Vadde Aged About 36 Years R/o Marka Beda, Garhbengal, P.O.- Gadhbengal, District - Narayapur (C.G.) 6 - Balram Jurri S/o Chandrabhan Jurri Aged About 40 Years R/o H.No. 22, Ulke Para, Duggabahara, Duggabahara, Balod (C.G.) 7 - Lalit Kumar Sonwani S/o Ghasiya Sonwani Aged About 38 Years R/o Markatola, Markatola (Largaon), Kanker (C.G.) 8 - Mahesh Kumar Kawde S/o Shyamlal Kawde, Aged About 36 Years Gaon - Chanar, P.O. - Junwani Teah, Narharpur, Chanar, Junwani, Kanker, Narharpur (C.G.) 9 - Shrimati Kamini Netam D/o Sanjay Netam, Aged About 31 Years R/o Chinauri Gotapara, P.O.- Chinauri, Charama, Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.09.22 18:32:01 +0530 2 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Department Of Financial Services, Ministry Of Finance, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, 110001 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Directorate Of Institutional Finance, Finance Department, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Reserve Bank Of India Through Governer, Reserve Bank Of India, 4th Floor, Amar Building, Sir P.M. Road Mumbai, 400001 4 - Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank Of India, Regional Office Raipur, Subhashish Parisar Satya Prem Vihar, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Limited (Cifcl) Having Corporate Office At Chola Crest, C54-55 And Super B-4, Thiru- Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600032 6 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Chairman, Corporate Office Sector 24, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Axis Bank Limited Having Its Registered Office At Trishul, Opposite Samartheshwan Temple, Ellis Bride, Ahmedabad – 380006 8 - Yes Bank Limited Having Its Head Office At Yes Bank Tower, I.F.C., 02, 23rd Floor, Senapati Bopat Marg, Elphinestone (W) Mumbai 400013 9 - Icici Bank Limited Having Its Registered Office At Icici Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vododara 390007, Gujrat 10 - Paysense Services India Pvt. Limited Having Registered Office At Empressa Building, 4th Floor Second Road, Khar West, Mumbai- 400052, Maharashra 11 - State Bank Of India Having Its Registered Office At Corporate Cente, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400021 12 - Collector, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh 13 - Collector, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 14 - Collector, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh 15 - Collector, District - Narayapur, Chhattisgar 3 16 - Sparsh Advisor Private Limited, Through Its Proprietor Manoj Kumar Pradhan, Having Registered Office At Office No. Ff, 1st Floor, Dm Plaza, Naighar Chowk, Chhota Para, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 17 - Sparsh Advisor Private Limited, Through Its Proprietor Manoj Kumar Pradhan, Having Branch Office At Behind Vashundhara City Mall, Near Tulsi Chowk, Gangapur, Ambikapur, Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Ms. Shotabdi Bagchi, Advocate For Respondent No.1-UoI : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 22.09.2025 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition with following reliefs: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to present case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 05 to Respondent No. 11 from taking any coercive action against the Petitioners, 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 4 (Banking Ombudsman) to initiate enquiry /investigation against the Respondent No. 05 to Respondent No. 11 and their respective officers with respect to their involvement in the illegal disbursement of personal loans to the Petitioners in gross violation of the notification, circular, and guidelines issued by the Respondent No. 3 (Reserve Bank of India); 4 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 12 to Respondent No. 15 (State) to take necessary action to recover the amount from the Respondent No. 12/13 as per law, 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.6 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice An affidavit in support of is filed herewith.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the brief facts of the case are that, in the month of January-April, 2024, the Private Respondents approached the Petitioners via phone call and offered to provide them with personal loans from banks under the 50% investment scheme. As per the scheme offered by the Private Respondents, the Private Respondents would use their networks and connections with various banks in the State of Chhattisgarh to get the desired loan amount for the Petitioners, thereafter, the Petitioners was required to deposit the 50% of sanctioned personal loan amount to the Private Respondent's bank accounts. The Private Respondents would use the said 50% amount to invest and earn profits and pay the EMI of personal loans taken in the name the Petitioners from the profits earned. The Private Respondents also provided a security cheque of the amount equivalent to the 50% amount deposited by the Petitioners in the bank accounts of the Private Respondents to gain his trust. It is pertinent to mention here that the date in the said security cheque was kept blank and the same was dishonored by the bank when it was submitted by the Petitioners in the bank. After 5 the Private Respondents stopped making payment of EMIs, the Banks started calling and pestering the Petitioners to make payment of EMIs and when the Petitioners contacted the Private Respondents regarding reasons for default in making payment of EMIs. the Private Respondent kept making excuses. It is at this point of time that the Petitioners understood that they have been scammed by the Private Respondents. It is submitted that Respondent Banks are required to sanction personal loans keeping in mind the creditworthiness of the borrowers. However, in the present case, all the guidelines and safety measures were thrown out of the window which clearly indicates the involvement of Respondent Bank officials. Immediately upon realizing the fraud, the Petitioners approached the police authorities and a FIR was registered bearing Crime No. 103/2025 at Police Station Kanker, Dist.-Kanker (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is pertinent to mention here that the total number of victims exceed 150. However, the Respondent authorities have miserably failed to give any relief to the Petitioners. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-bank submits that the petitioners have taken loans from the concerned Banks and the loan amount was deposited in their account and now they are not willing to repay the loan amount. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of keeping this petition pending, this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the petitioners to file an application/complaint directly before the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Regional Office, Raipur within a period ‘15 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In turn concerned Banking Ombudsman is directed to decide the complaint/application within a period of ‘60 days’ from the date of application/complaint filed by the petitioners. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant