Gauhati High Court
Sunil Kumar Verma vs Yes Bank Limited And 2 Ors on 17 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010121632025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./674/2025
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA
S/O LATE BINOD SHANKAR PRASAD VERMA,
R/O HOUSE NO. 48, PUBERUN PATH,
HATIGAON CHARIALI,
P.O. AND P.S. HATIGAON,
DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM,
PIN-781038
VERSUS
YES BANK LIMITED AND 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CMD (CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR),
HEAD OFFICE, WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, SANTA CRUZE, EAST
MUMBAI, PIN-400055
2:THE SENIOR LEGAL MANAGER
YES BANK
GUWAHATI BRANCH
GROUND FLOOR
ASIA COMPLEX
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI-781007
3:SREETAMA MANNA
(CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY OF YES BANK LIMITED)
W/O SRI SUBHANKAR SHAW
R/O 1ST FLOOR
STEPHEN HOUSE
56A
HEMANTA BASU SARANI
KOLKATA-700001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAUHAN, R DEB,MR N ALAM,B CHOWHAN,MR. P
MAZUMDER
Page No.# 2/8
Advocate for the Respondent : MR M SARMA(R-1 TO 3),
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Chauhan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate
(for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3)
Date of Order : 17.10.2025
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
2. This Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sunil Kumar Verma, praying for quashing of the proceedings of Case No. CS/66696/2025 pending before the Court of learned 17th Judicial Magistrate at Kolkata.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are that on 19.11.2020, the petitioner applied for a loan of Rs.30,70,000/- from Yes Bank for purchasing three commercial vehicles. Accordingly, three account numbers were opened in the name of the petitioner, namely, (i) CVL048100714596, (ii) CVL048100714648 and (iii) CVL048100714657. Accordingly, after availing the loan, the petitioner purchased three commercial vehicles bearing Registration Nos. AS-01-MC-7724, AS-01-MC-7725 and AS-01- MC-7726. The petitioner was regularly paying the estimated monthly installments (EMI) of the said loans in the bank. However, during COVID period, Page No.# 3/8 he prayed for granting of nine months moratorium regarding repayment of loan from the bank, which was not allowed by the bank. The petitioner defaulted in payment of the estimated monthly installments.The Yes Bank thereafter preferred an original application being O.A. No. 165/2024 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati for realization of outstanding balance of Rs.63,19,312/- from the petitioner. It is stated in the criminal petition that the petitioner again applied for two loans from the Yes Bank. The loan of Rs.7,50,000/- was sanctioned by the Bank against Account No. CVL04810041767. After availing the said loan, the petitioner purchased one Bolero vehicle. It is also stated by the petitioner that the petitioner was regularly depositing EMI against the said loan. However, on 20.08.2023, the said loan was declared by the bank as NPA.
4. At the time of filing of this instant criminal petition, an amount of Rs.1,68,402/- only remained outstanding against the fourth loan availed by the petitioner. After receiving the notice from the DRT, the petitioner appeared before it and submitted his written statement along with evidence.
5. It is also stated by the petitioner that even after preferring an Original Application before the DRT for recovery of amount against all five loans account, the respondent bank tried to execute the electronic clearing system/direct debit facility on 08.01.2025 and tried to transfer Rs.2,04,054/- from the petitioner's account, however, the said transfer was dishonored.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that though the bank claimed that they had issued notice, after dishonor of the electronic fund transfer, to the petitioner demanding payment against said electronic fund transfer, however, no such notice has been served on the petitioner. Thereafter, the bank filed the complaint Case No. CS/66696/2025 in the Court of Chief Page No.# 4/8 Judicial Magistrate, Kolkata which was transferred to the Court of the learned 17th Judicial Magistrate, Kolkata. The aforesaid complaint was filed by the bank under Sections 25/27 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no demand notice under Section 25(c) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 was served on the petitioner by the bank in pursuant to the mandate of Section 25(c) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. He further submits that the loan applications were submitted by the petitioner in the Yes Bank, the loan were sanctioned and disbursed at Guwahati. He further submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Guwahati and the Yes Bank declared the loan as Non-performing Asset (NPA) in Guwahati and the O.A. No. 165/2024 was also at Guwahati Branch of DRT. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent bank intentionally, in order to, harass the present petitioner filed the complaint Case No. CS/66696/2025 for recovery of Rs.2,04,054/- at Kolkata without the said Court having jurisdiction over the matter. He further submits that the Bank is regularly debiting the EMIs from the savings bank account of the petitioner held in SBI.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the main dispute between the bank and the petitioner is pre-dominantly civil in nature regarding non-payment of outstanding dues to the bank for which the bank has already approached DRT as stated above, the pendency of criminal case in connection with said dispute should be quashed. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of "K. Bharthi Devi and Anr. Vs. State of Telangana and Anr ." reported in "(2024) 10 SCC 384".
Page No.# 5/8
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complaint case filed by the respondent bank before the learned 17th Judicial Magistrate, Kolkata is for dishonor of Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) under Sections 25/26 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. He submits that as the Yes Bank processing and clearing centre for the EFT is located at Kolkata, the complaint was rightly filed in Kolkata. He also submits that pendency of original application before the DRT for recovery of outstanding dues is not a bar for criminal prosecution if the case has been made out against the present petitioner as the proceeding pending before the DRT is in the nature of civil proceeding. Whereas, the case pending before the learned 17th Judicial Magistrate, Kolkata is a criminal proceeding having penal consequences and quite distinct from the proceeding before the DRT.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that there has been no violation of Section 25(c) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 as the respondent/as complainant has furnished documentary proof of service and same shall be the subject-matter of trial only. He submits that the disputed questions on service of notice cannot be gone into in an application for quashing of the criminal proceedings. In support of his submissions, he cites a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of " S. Krishnamoorthy Vs. Chellammal"
reported in "(2015) 14 SCC 559".
11. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the jurisdiction in EFT dishonored cases lies where the beneficiary's processing branch is situated and, therefore, Court at Kolkata does have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case against the petitioner. He further submits that the criminal petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and quashing of a Page No.# 6/8 criminal case at threshold is not permissible and the questions raised by the petitioner in this criminal petition regarding disputed question of facts can be best gone into during the trial and not at this stage and, therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents has prayed for dismissing the instant criminal petition.
12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available before this Court.
13. On perusal of the copy of complaint petition, it appears that specific accusation has been made against the present petitioner in the said complaint under Section 25(1) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. As regards the issuance of notice under Section 25(c) of the aforesaid Act, there has been a categorical averment made in the complaint petition which indicates that such notice was issued by the complainant as required under the statute.
14. Further, as the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 creates criminal liability under Section 25(1) of the aforesaid Act on dishonor of Electronic Funds Transfer for insufficiency of funds, it is quite different from the civil liability. Further, wherever same set of facts also give rise to criminal liability in addition to civil liability, same may not be a bar for initiation of criminal proceeding in accordance with the relevant penal statute.
15. Further, Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 provides that where an electronic fund transfer initiated by a person from an account maintained by him cannot be executed on the ground that the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the transfer instruction or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank, such persons shall be deemed to Page No.# 7/8 have committed an offence under the said provision, subject to other stipulations contained in Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.
16. On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that it is not a case where the allegations made in the complaint petition does not disclose an offence under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. Further, it is also a settled proposition of law that while examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the said complaint.
17. Further, it is also a settled proposition of law that criminal proceeding ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage and the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS should be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances.
18. Further, Section 25(5) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 provides that the provision of Chapter-17 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 shall apply to the dishonor of the electronic funds transfer to the extent the circumstances admit. Whereas, Section 142(2) provides for the place where the alleged offence under Section 138 of the NI Act may be enquired into and tried and it stipulates that such case may be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the bank where the payee maintains an account.
19. As such, at this stage, the plea of lack of jurisdiction of the Court situated at Kolkata, does not appear to be cogent as there is a categorical pleading in the complaint petition that the credit account of the complainant bank for which ECS/direct debit facility was executed is maintained and Page No.# 8/8 administrated from Yes Bank Limited situated at Kolkata and, therefore, prima facie, it appears that the Judicial Magistrate's Court at Kolkata may have jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid complaint.
20. For the reasons stated herein above, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case where inherent power of this Court may be invoked to quash the proceeding of complaint Case No. CS/66696/2025 pending before the learned 17th Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta.
21. This criminal petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant