Virender Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited - Therefore, mere inability to the petitioners to return the entire loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent and dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction as it is the mens rea which is crux of the offence.

HC Calcutta (2026.03.02) in  Virender Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited  [CRR/981/2026] held that;

• Therefore from the averment made in the complaint it is clear that petitioner has repaid a substantial amount and there was no deception at the inception to attract offence of cheating.

• Therefore, mere inability to the petitioners to return the entire loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent and dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction as it is the mens rea which is crux of the offence.

• She further argued that in view of the judgment passed in the case of Delhi Race Club (2024 INSC 626) the allegation under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS cannot co-exists on the basis of self-same set of facts.

• Moreover, in the absence of any specific allegation of entrustment, the offence of criminal breach of trust does not attract.

• Therefore, mere civil wrong, if any, and/or infringement of a civil right cannot give rise to criminal proceeding by using the expressions like, “cheating”, “deception” and “inducement”.

Excerpts of the Order; 

The petitioners herein have prayed for quashing of the complaint Case No.CS/230782/2025 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023 presently pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta.

The allegation levelled in the complaint is that complainant believing upon the representation made by the petitioners to be true and also having lured into the assurances, thereof, has financed loan amount of Rs.9,90,000/- for purchase of a vehicle. It is further alleged that the petitioners have misappropriated the same which is a public money and has earned huge profit out of it and in turn with dishonest intention from the very inception have committed cheating and criminal breach of trust in respect of the complainant, a huge amount of money, i.e. Rs.6,92,325/- which are due till date.

Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is admitted position that the petitioner no.1 availed loan facility and he had been paying regular EMIs to the opposite party on a regular basis. However, due to certain difficulty he could not repay the entire loan amount to the complainant. Therefore from the averment made in the complaint it is clear that petitioner has repaid a substantial amount and there was no deception at the inception to attract offence of cheating. 

Therefore, mere inability to the petitioners to return the entire loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent and dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction as it is the mens rea which is crux of the offence. She further argued that in view of the judgment passed in the case of Delhi Race Club (2024 INSC 626) the allegation under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS cannot co-exists on the basis of self-same set of facts. Moreover, in the absence of any specific allegation of entrustment, the offence of criminal breach of trust does not attract. Therefore, mere civil wrong, if any, and/or infringement of a civil right cannot give rise to criminal proceeding by using the expressions like, “cheating”, “deception” and “inducement”. Further continuance of the impugned proceeding wherein the complainant has tried to criminalize a civil dispute would be mere abuse of the process of the Court, and therefore, she has prayed for quashing the impugned proceeding. 

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the application is admitted. 

Petitioners are directed to serve a copy of application upon the opposite party through speed post intimating next date of hearing and to file affidavit of service on the returnable date. 

Let the matter be listed in the Monthly List of May, 2026. 

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court has already issued warrant of arrest against the petitioners by the impugned order dated 18.10.2025 and, as such, she prays for interim protection.

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and that the petitioners have made out an arguable case, let the impugned proceeding being Complainant Case No.CS/230782/2025 presently pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta is hereby stayed for a period of 12 weeks or until further order, whichever is earlier. 

Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. 

---------------------------------------------------------