Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited Vs Fool Singh Dugga

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:49767

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 136 of 2020

¶6

1 - Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Limited Branch Office, Rishabh Tower, First Floor In Front Of New Bus Stand, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Through Attorney Mahendra Sahu S/o Shri M.R. Sahu. ... Appellant

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Fool Singh Dugga House No. 10, Ward No. 16, Hilchur Manpur, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant	:	Mr. Swayam	Tehanguria, Advocate
For Respondent	:	None

¶12

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶13

Judgment on Board 07/10/2025

¶14

Heard.

¶15

This appeal has been preferred by appellant/ complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging order dated 30.7.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in complaint case No.4039/2015, whereby proceedings of complaint case filed by appellant/ complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

¶16

2

¶17

1881 (for brevity ‘the Act, 1881’) have been stopped, in view of provisions of Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶18

Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that appellant/ complainant filed complaint case under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 stating therein that cheque issued by respondent for repayment of loan amount has been bounced and despite service of demand notice, respondent has not complied with the same.

¶19

After entering appearance, respondent informed the Court that the vehicle (tractor) which was purchased by him after obtaining loan of Rs. 5,00,800/- from appellant/ complainant was seized by the appellant, as he could not repay the loan amount. The appellant/complainant after selling the said vehicle in auction for worth Rs.5,31,000/- and obtaining penalty amount from respondent against the non-repayment of loan amount had closed the loan account of respondent, therefore, complaint case is not maintainable.

¶20

On aforesaid submission made by respondent, learned trial Court directed complainant/ appellant to submit details of concerned loan account of respondent and other pertaining documents. After submitting those documents, learned trial Court observed that total amount of loan taken by respondent was Rs. 5,00,800/- against which, respondent had already paid Rs.1,59,600/-. Margin money of Rs.2,77,080/- was already paid by respondent himself and complainant had already received Rs.5,31,000/- after reselling the vehicle in auction. Thus, he had already received total amount of Rs.9,67,680/- against loan amount of Rs.5,00,800/- including margin money of Rs.2,77,080/- because of which complainant has closed the loan account of respondent by waiving remaining amount of interest, despite that appellant/ complainant had sent

¶21

3

¶22

demand notice of Rs.1,39,491/- dated 14.7.2015 and filed instant complaint case, therefore, the same is not maintainable as respondent has already paid all the amount and after waiving remaining interest, if any, have issued NOC on 01.6.2015 by closing the loan account of respondent, therefore, learned trial Court stopped the proceedings of complaint case filed against respondent, in view of provision of Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. and discharge the respondent/ proposed accused.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that margin money of Rs.2,77,080/- was paid to the dealer by the respondent and No Objection Certificate (NOC) was provided to the RTO after reselling of vehicle (tractor) stating inter-alia that no amount is due to be paid against that vehicle, but, that NOC was not provided to the respondent. Despite that on the basis of that NOC, learned trial Court has stopped the proceedings of aforesaid complaint case vide impugned order which is perverse and illegal, hence, he prayed that this appeal may be allowed by setting-aside impugned order dated 30.7.2018, directing learned trial Court to proceed further in that complaint case and decide the same on merit.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶25

Perusal of impugned order as well as record of learned trial Court show that respondent had taken Rs. 5,00,800/- from appellant/ complainant as vehicle loan and margin money Rs.2,77,080/- for purchase of vehicle was paid by respondent himself. Since respondent could not repay the loan amount, vehicle was seized by appellant/ complainant within a year and after reselling the same, he had received Rs.5,31,000/-. As learned trial Court has further

¶26

4

¶27

observed, on the basis of loan account of respondent that he had already paid Rs.1,59,600/- against the loan amount, thus, appellant/complainant had received total amount of Rs. 6,90,600/(Rs.5,31,000/- + Rs.1,59,600/-) against loan amount of Rs.5,00,800/- . Appellant/ complainant had also issued NOC stating therein as contented by learned counsel for the appellant that no amount is due to be paid against that vehicle, therefore, he has closed the loan account of respondent. Aforesaid content of NOC itself shows that no amount was left to be paid against that vehicle, as such, appellant had closed the loan account of respondent. If that NOC was issued to the RTO, even then, contents of that NOC as stated by learned counsel for the appellant itself shows that no amount against that vehicle is due to be paid by the respondent and consequently, appellant/ complainant had closed the loan account of respondent, therefore, not giving NOC to the respondent is of no worth pertaining to the alleged loan.

¶28

On due consideration, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order dated 31.7.2018 passed by the JMFC, Rajnandgaon, hence, the instant appeal is dismissed.

¶29

SD/-

¶30

( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) JUDGE

¶31

Ayushi

¶32

Digitally signed by AYUSHI AYUSHI SINGH Date: SINGH 2025.10.09 17:55:39 +0530

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited v. Fool Singh Dugga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited v. Fool Singh Dugga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premchand Bhansali Vs Manohar Lal Sinha

Haricharn Ramteke Vs Barsati Lal Dhruv

Satyanarayan Singh Thakur Vs Smt. Champa Ueke

Sonlal Turi @ Bhagwan Puriha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akhil Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Maniram Sonwani @ Bablu Vs the State of Chhattisgarh