ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. - (1.) PETITIONER was a finance company. They used to give personal loan against pledge of gold. According to the respondent, she took loan upon pledge of gold ornaments on February 19, 2008 and February 25, 2008. The finance company disbursed rupees sixty-three thousand and three hundred on two different dates being rupees twenty-five thousand three hundred on March 19, 2008 and rest rupees thirty-eight thousand on May 24, 2008. On May 24, 2008 the entire loan amount was refunded. However, the company refused to give back the gold ornaments.
(2.) ACCORDING to the company, the respondent obtained loan of rupees twentyfive thousand and three hundred on February 19, 2008. On March 19, 2008 she visited office of the petitioner and paid the interest for rupees five hundred and six and prayed for renewal. ACCORDINGly, the said loan of rupees twenty-five thousand and three hundred was renewed and the new loan account was opened on the said date. On February 25, 2008 the respondent obtained another loan of rupees thirtyeight thousand being loan account no.187. On May 24, 2008 the respondent asked for enhancement of the existing loan as there was appreciation in the rate of gold. On May 24, 2008 she deposited sixty-seven thousand and one for closure of the loan account no.187 and 234 for rupees forty thousand two hundred and fifty five and rupees twenty-six thousand three hundred and ninety-six respectively inclusive of interest and service charge. She opened a new account being loan account no.341 and 342 for rupees thirty-nine thousand and twenty-seven thousand respectively. Thereafter she took another loan of rupees sixty-six thousand from the company on the same day and received the amount in cash. According to the petitioner, the respondent owed the said sum of rupees sixty-six thousand as principal in respect of both the loan accounts as also the interest accrued thereon. She did not pay back the money despite demand. The respondent approached the learned Magistrate by filing a complaint on the allegation that she was cheated by the company and, thus, the officials of the company were liable to suffer punishment under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said proceeding the petitioner has now come up for quashing of the Howrah Police Station Case No.118 of 2010 dated May 11, 2010 presently pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah as G.R. Case No.1919 of 2010. Ms. Sarbari Datta, learned counsel appearing in support of the application contends that the respondent confused the issue by misleading this Court. From her own averment made in the petition it would appear that she repaid the loan on May 24, 2008 and on the same day she obtained another loan which she did not repay. She relied upon a cash receipt appearing at page 12 of the petition which would show that she paid rupees sixty-seven thousand and one in cash and on the same day she obtained loan as would appear from her petition. Hence, such disputed questions of fact should be tried by a Civil Court.;