Calcutta High Court Quashes Trespass Charges Against Bank's Debt Manager, Says Visit To Defaulter's House Was In Due Course Of Official Duty

The Calcutta High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings for trespass and intimidation initiated against ICICI Bank's debt manager who had visited the house of a credit card holder in connection with pending dues.

A single-judge bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held,

“The petitioner being the Debt Manager of the bank's separate wing, with appropriate training as per RBI guidelines to facilitate the bank in its recovery process, allegedly went to the house of the complainant on 17.12.2019 at 2 pm to recover the bank's dues. The said act of the petitioner is part of his job and the time of going to the petitioner's house is also appropriate. Considering the time to be 2pm, it is apparent that the petitioner did not intend to act in an unlawful manner. The outstanding dues of the complainant is admitted. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner was in due course of his official duty and he has been empowered to do so as per RBI Guidelines. If every Authorised Officer of a bank/institution has to face criminal charges levelled by a defaulter, for acting in accordance with law, then it is clearly an abuse of the process of law and such proceeding should not be allowed to continue in the interest of justice.”

It was argued by the petitioner that upon inspection of the respondent-opposite party’s dues, it was found that he had borrowed huge sums of money from ICICI Bank but he neglected to make payments towards dues. Accordingly, petitioner said he visited respondent's house.

It was argued by the petitioner that the criminal complaints filed by the opposite party were malicious and a frivolous attempt to evade the payment of outstanding dues.

The Court noted that in spite of service there was no representation by the opposite party/respondents, and in the absence of the same it delved into the contents of the criminal complaints filed by the opposite party, which were sought to be quashed by the petitioner.

The Bench observed that aside from allegations of criminal conspiracy, criminal trespass and extortion, which were levelled by the opposite party against the petitioner, the complaint made by the opposite party contained specific averments regarding his inability to pay the dues. It was noted:

“In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint it is stated:- (i) That since long the complainant has been suffering from acute financial crunch due to present financial recession and the complainant is going through tremendous financial crisis. So, it is very difficult for him to make proper monthly payment of the dues within stipulated period to ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank in respect of his above mentioned two Credit Cards. (ii)That ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank have debited huge charges such as over dues charges, over limits fees, late fees, finance charges retail, finance charges cash, interest, processing fees and others from the complainant illegally and unlawfully by violating the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India for which the complainant has suffered serious financial loss due to such charges which was debited from the complainant's account…The complainant has admitted his dues. His defence is financial crisis and high extra charges, such as overdue charges, over limit charge, late fee etc. The statement of account annexed shows the complainant has used the card at various kinds of outlets, including hotel/resort etc.”

Accordingly, it was held that since the petitioner was employed as a debt manager for ICICI Bank, his role would have entailed engaging with ‘delinquent customers’ for the recovery of dues, and that according to previous Supreme Court judgments, he would have been part of a ‘separate wing’, wherein appropriate training would be given according to RBI guidelines to aid in the recovery process for banks.

As such, it was concluded that the petitioner had acted according to the RBI’s guidelines as well as the Master Circular on Credit Card Operation by the RBI, and hence all criminal proceedings pending against him in connection with the aforesaid matter were quashed.

Coram: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

Case: Tushar Manna v Ananda Sarkar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 184

Click Here To Read/Download Order