HDFC LTD. Vs. DANIEL SANLUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is to quash the complaint filed in C.C. No. 4081 of 2019 before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, for the alleged offence under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant and his wife had entered into an agreement with the developer by the name 'Tata Realty and Infrastructure Limited for the purchase of a residential apartment at Kochi for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,00,11,895.00; that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.63,50,384.00 and had approached the first petitioner for a housing loan for a sum of Rs.2,46,00,000.00; that a triparte agreement dtd. 15/7/2015 was entered into between complainant, his wife, the first petitioner and the developer; that the first petitioner in collusion with the developer disbursed the loan amount of Rs.2,42,98,578.00 even before the completion of construction, contrary to the terms of the triparte agreement; that the first petitioner started demanding the E.M.I.'s (Equated Monthly Installments) after such disbursal of the loan amount; that the respondent and his wife aggrieved by the said act of the first petitioner and the developer, lodged an F.I.R. in Crime No. 3118 of 2019 on the file of the Ernakulam Central Police; that the respondent had also filed a consumer complaint on the file of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram; that the developer offered to settle the dispute; that on 8/3/2019, a settlement agreement was executed as per which the developer refunded the entire amount of Rs.2,42,98,578.00 to the first petitioner and paid a sum of Rs.75,00,000.00 to the respondent as full and final settlement; that pursuant to the said compromise, the respondent withdrew the criminal complaint and the consumer complaint; that however, the first petitioner had made false entries in the Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited [hereinafter referred to as 'CIBIL' for the sake of convenience] stating that the respondent had borrowed loan from the first petitioner, there was a default and a Suit was filed for recovery of money; that inspite of the letter addressed by the respondent to the first petitioner and its officers to update the CIBIL status stating that their reputation was damaged on account of those false entries; that the first petitioner and its officers did not update the CIBIL entries; that in view of the false entries loan applied by the respondent in his friend's finance company was rejected; that the entries were false and motivated with an intention to harm the reputation of the respondent; and that the friends and others from his business circle started enquiring the respondent about the false entries and hence the petitioners have committed the offence under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) (a) Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned complaint does not disclose the alleged offences. The petitioners have no control over the entries made by the CIBIL authorities. The petitioners have informed the CIBIL authorities that a Suit was filed for the recovery of money. The fact that the Suit was pending and withdrawn on settlement of the dues cannot be disputed by the respondent. The entries would only show that the Suit was filed and there was no money due from the respondent, which is a fact.