AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                    1              22-WP 643-23.doc



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.643 OF 2023

AU Small Finance Bank Limited & Ors.                    … Petitioners
       V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.                        … Respondents
                                     -----
Mr. Sandesh Shukla, Ms. Ana Samah Sayed, Afsar Ansari, Devesh Sawant
i/by Vivek Patil & Associates for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Ameya Pitale for Respondent No.2.
                                     -----

                                 CORAM :      N.R. BORKAR, J.
                                 DATE    :    13TH JANUARY 2026
P.C. :


1.       This Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 28 th November
2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shahapur below Exhibit
1 in O.M.A. No.235 of 2022, by which the Learned Magistrate has issued
process against the present Petitioners for the offences punishable under
Sections 418, 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.


2.       Petitioner No. 1 is a scheduled commercial bank. Petitioner Nos. 2
to 4 are the Managing Director, Chairman and Deputy Manager (Legal)
respectively of Petitioner No.1. Respondent No. 1 is the State of
Maharashtra and Respondent No.2 is the original complainant.


3.       It is the case of the original complainant that he was running a
business namely Dhruv Transport since 2018. He was in need of financial
assistance for his business and as such he approached Petitioner No.1 to


     Mugdha                                                              1 of 4
                                   2              22-WP 643-23.doc



avail loan for the purpose of refinancing his truck bearing Registration
No.MH-04-HD-0216. It is alleged that on 16th January 2020, his signature
as the borrower and his wife’s signature as the guarantor, were taken on a
blank loan application form by Petitioner No.1’s employee at their house.
Thereafter, the said employee assured him that he will be contacted upon
approval of the said loan.

4.       It is alleged that on 12th October 2021, the original complainant
received notices, thereby notifying him that Petitioner No. 1 had
sanctioned and disbursed a loan of Rs. 7,28,000/- in favour of him against
his truck bearing Registration No. MH-04-HD-0216. Due to the non-
payment of the loan installments, Petitioner no.1 had filed an arbitration
proceeding against him. It was further mentioned in the notice that as per
Order dated 4th October 2021, passed by the Sole Arbitrator at Jaipur in
ARB Case No. AU/720/2021, Petitioner No.1 is entitled to take possession
of the said truck as well as to sell the same to adjust the sale proceeds
towards the loan amount due. It is alleged by the original complainant
that he had never applied for the said loan.


5.       I have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Learned
Counsel for contesting Respondent No.2.


6.       Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Learned
Magistrate refused to order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.
C. and directed the investigation under Section 202. It is submitted that
pursuant to the said direction, investigation was done and as the dispute
between the parties was found to be of civil in nature, the report was



     Mugdha                                                             2 of 4
                                          3                 22-WP 643-23.doc



accordingly submitted. It is submitted that the Learned Magistrate,
without considering the said fact, has mechanically issued the process. It
is submitted that though complainant has made all sorts of allegations,
however, he has not disputed that he has received the amount of
Rs.6,10,000/- towards loan. It is submitted that the complainant has filed
the complaint with ulterior motive. It is submitted that considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned cannot be
allowed to stand.


7.       On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2-
Complainant submits that the Learned Magistrate after considering the
material on record has rightly issued the process. Learned Counsel for
Respondent No.2 submits that detail reasons are not required to be
recorded at the time of issuance of process.                  In support of the said
submission, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 has relied upon the
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U. P. Pollution
Control Board vs. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. & Ors.1


8.       I have perused the impugned order. It reads thus:
               “Perused the complaint. Heard, learned Advocate for the
               complainant. Verification statement of the complainant is recorded. I
               have gone through documents filed along with the complaint,
               document filed on record and report filed u/s 156(3) of Cr.p.C. All
               the record prima-facie shows commission of the offence u/s.
               418,420,463,464,465,468,471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code by all
               accused. In the result issue process against accused U/s.
               418,420,464,465,468,471 of the Indian Penal Code on P.F. R/on-
               18/02/2023. This case be registered as regular case.”



1    [2002] 2 S.C.R. 566



     Mugdha                                                                            3 of 4
                                      4               22-WP 643-23.doc



9.       It appears that Learned Magistrate has mechanically issued process
against the present Petitioners for all the offences mentioned in the
complaint without examining whether on the basis of allegations, the said
offences are prima facie made out or not. In the investigation carried out
under Section 202 of the Cr. P. C. the dispute between the parties was
found to be of civil in nature and accordingly report was submitted. The
Learned Counsel for the Complainant has not disputed the fact that the
Complainant has received the amount of Rs.6,10,000/- towards loan from
Petitioner No.1-Bank. The complaint thus does not appear to be bonafide.
The order impugned therefore cannot be allowed to stand. Hence, the
following order:


                                      ORDER
       i.     The Writ Petition is allowed.

       ii.    The order impugned is set aside.

       iii.   The complaint filed by Respondent No.2-Complainant is
              dismissed.



                                                 (N.R. BORKAR, J.)




     Mugdha                                                              4 of 4