31.08.2026 Sl. No.22 Ali Ct No.42 CRR 1468 of 2024 Bikash Choual Vs. The State Of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Tirthankar Dey, Mr. Prabhat Kr. Srivastava …for the Petitioner Mr. P. Karan Singh ...for the State 1. The petitioner, an employee and branch manager of Axis Bank Limited, has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashing of the criminal proceeding in CR Case No. 1166 of 2021, involving alleged offenses punishable under Sections 323/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, currently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad arising out of a written complaint filed by Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The genesis of the dispute traces back to a Loan-cum- Hypothecation Agreement dated December 9, 2020, executed between Axis Bank Limited and the primary borrower, the late Saidul Alam, with Opposite Party No. 2 joining as a co-borrower, under which the bank financed a Bharat Benz Tipper bearing Registration No. WB57E 3420 to the tune of Rs. 42,12,212/-. 3. Following defaults in loan repayments by the borrowers, the bank initiated legal and recovery proceedings by issuing a 2 formal demand notice on September 7, 2021, for Rs. 39,23,423/-, followed by a subsequent notice on October 27, 2021, demanding Rs. 42,36,298/- within seven days. In furtherance of these recovery measures and pursuant to Clause 17 of the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement, the bank repossessed the vehicle on October 26, 2021, and subsequently sold it through an open auction on January 7, 2022, for Rs. 24,02,300/-, leaving an unrecovered shortfall of Rs. 18,33,998/-. 4. In the interim period, specifically after the vehicle's repossession on October 26, 2021, but prior to its final auction, Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a criminal complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad, on December 7, 2021, alleging assault and outraging of modesty, while conspicuously omitting any reference to the underlying loan transaction, the default, or the lawful repossession, and failing to name any specific individual. Upon examining witnesses, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offenses on February 11, 2022, and directed the issuance of process against the petitioner under Sections 323/354/506/34 IPC, prompting the petitioner to prefer the instant revisional application. 5. Challenging these proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is fundamentally civil and commercial in nature, arising out of a contractual lending relationship, and that Opposite Party No. 2 intentionally instituted this criminal proceeding to 3 harass the petitioner, who was merely discharging his official duties in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement without harbouring any personal grievance against the complainant. It is further highlighted that the criminal complaint was lodged more than five weeks after the vehicle was repossessed, with no plausible explanation for the delay, demonstrating that the criminal action was a mere afterthought engineered solely to obstruct the bank's recovery proceedings after the notice of sale was issued, and that the allegations in the complaint are vague, omnibus, and attribute no specific overt acts to the petitioner, thereby failing to satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 323 and 354 read with Section 34 IPC. In support of these contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judicial precedents of this Court in Vishal Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal (CRR 1722 of 2011), Prantik Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. (CRR 1255 of 2024), and Joydeep Sengupta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. (CRR 1244 of 2021), alongside settled propositions regarding the repossession of hypothecated vehicles by financiers as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sardar Trilok Singh. 6. Although none appears on behalf of the opposite parties at the final hearing despite service of notice and sufficient opportunity being granted, this Court has meticulously examined the case records, including the materials collected during investigation and the terms of the Loan-cum- 4 Hypothecation Agreement available at page 17 of the revisional application. A perusal of Clause 17 of the agreement explicitly empowers the bank to take physical possession of hypothecated or mortgaged assets and to sell, transfer, or otherwise deal with them to enforce security and recover dues in terms of the contract. Furthermore, examination of the complaint filed by Opposite Party No. 2 reveals that while she vaguely alluded to an incident on October 26, 2021, and named the owner, agency, and bank manager, she raised no specific allegations against any named individual, meaning the petitioner has been roped into the criminal process solely by virtue of his official designation as the bank manager without any foundational averments disclosing individual criminal liability. To compel a financial officer to face criminal trial under such circumstances, where actions are taken strictly pursuant to a lawful commercial contract and statutory recovery mechanisms, represents a textbook abuse of the process of law, rendering the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner completely untenable and unsustainable. 7. Accordingly, the revisional application is allowed. 8. CR Case No. 1166 of 2021, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad, along with all consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioner, stands quashed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 5 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of the Calcutta High Court. (UDAY KUMAR, J.)