A L NOOR MOHAMED Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records relating to C.C.No.3036 of 2007 from the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai and quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner submits that he is a businessman and he has taken a personal loan of Rs.3,09,000/- from the Respondent/ICICI Bank Limited in the month of September 2004. As per the said loan agreement, the petitioner has to pay Rs.12,609/- as monthly instalment for 36 months. The petitioner remitted Rs.2,20,000/- that was regular in payments. At the time of availing the loan, the petitioner issued cheques as security. The cheques were dishonoured due to inadequate funds. Thereafter, the respondent Bank has filed a private complaint against the petitioner in C.C.No.3036 of 2007 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai for an alleged offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC alleging that the petitioner had criminal intention and in conspiracy had committed offences of cheating and misappropriation of money belonging to the respondent Bank.

(3.) The complainant clearly stated that the finance company has disbursed the personal loan on 16.09.2004, and that it is alleged the loan was granted for the purchase of car. There is a controversy and dispute over the loan category under which the loan has been advanced. Further, it is alleged by the complainant that the petitioner has cheated to the tune of Rs.1,24,206/-. The petitioner submitted that reading of the complaint would show that there is no material to show that the element of cheating and misappropriation are made in this case. Further, the petitioner has alleged that he has made payment of over Rs.2 lakhs towards the said loan amount. As such, Sections 406 and 420 will not be attracted. Further, the petitioner contends that the remedy lies with the Civil Court for recovery of arrears of loan. The petitioner has further alleged that he has not availed a loan of Rs.3,49,000/- as alleged and that it was a top up loan which was already availed.