CJM Ludhiana summons finance company, 2 directors on borrower’s cheating complaint
Proposed accused heard first, as BNSS now requires; the director named only by designation is not summoned.
Published
00Background
The complainant alleged that the company took her gold ornaments as security for a loan, then refused to return them after full repayment, claiming they had been auctioned.
01Submissions
For the complainant (pre-summoning evidence)
Loan closure receipt and the company’s own letter confirm repayment. No auction notice was ever sent.
For the proposed accused (heard under the proviso to S. 223(1))
The ornaments were auctioned under the loan terms after an earlier default; the dispute is civil and the complaint is a pressure tactic.
02Observations
After hearing the proposed accused, the Magistrate noted that the complaint attributed specific acts to two directors: one signed the closure receipt and the other the letter refusing return. The third was named only as a director.
“Being a director is not by itself a ground to summon. The complaint must say what the person did, and against the third respondent it says nothing.”
Order, ¶ 11 · open at p. 5
03Findings & directions
- Company and two directors summoned for 04.11.2026 under S. 318(4) BNS.
- Complaint against the third director dismissed at the summoning stage.
Summary of a court order for information. Read the order itself before relying on it. Spotted an error? Report it — corrections are logged on this page.