THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5440 of 2008 Dated:09.07.2010 Between: The City Financial Consumer Finance Indian Limited, And another. ….Petitioners And Smt.Saruna Sharma, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5440 of 2008 ORDER: The first petitioner is a Company and the second petitioner is the District Manager of the branch of the first petitioner at Hyderabad. They are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.290 of 2008 of P.S.Narayanaguda. They filed the instant criminal petition to quash the investigation into the said crime. The crime was registered by the Police on a complaint filed by the first respondent on the file of the Court of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was endorsed to the Police. The first respondent – complainant, filed private complaint in the criminal Court alleging as follows. The first respondent approached the petitioners for personal loan on 24.04.2007. The request was accepted on condition that the loan amount shall carry interest ranging from 21% to 24%. Accepting the loan she executed necessary documents, and a cheque for Rs.40,000/- was issued under loan account No.11878720. This loan amount is payable in 48 monthly installments at Rs.2067/- per month commencing from 05.06.2007. After payment of 11 installments she realized that she paid more than Rs.20,000/- by the date and that the petitioners collected interest at 37.01%. After realizing this, the complainant’s husband approached the first petitioner with a request to cancel the loan and take back the amount. Accused No.2 demanded Rs.40,147/- towards balance amount with interest up to 05.05.2008. The complainant gave a cheque on 06.05.2008 for Rs.40,368/- towards full and final settlement. Subsequently on verification she found that the petitioners charged interest at 57% per annum. Therefore, she sent instructions to bankers to stop the payment and then filed the complaint on 26.05.2008. The Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that if the allegations made in the complaint of the first respondent are taken to be true, the same do not disclose offences under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). According to him it is a dispute arising out of a contract for loan and the first respondent accepted to take loan agreeing with all conditions. Therefore, her remedy lies elsewhere. Per contra, the Counsel for the first respondent submits that his clients reposed trust in the petitioners and agreed to take the loan on their terms, but subsequently, when it was verified, it was found that the petitioners charged interest at 57% per annum. This itself amounts to breach of trust attracting Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. This Court has carefully perused the complaint filed before the Court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate. As rightly pointed out by the Senior Counsel the same does not even remotely lead to an inference that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are made out. In such background, if the investigation is allowed, it would amount to abuse of process of law, and unnecessarily subjecting the petitioners to criminal judicial process. The Criminal Petition is, therefore, allowed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09.07.2010 vs