The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirms the principle that in cases involving disputed questions of fact—such as fraudulently procured loans and alleged cyber crime—writ petitions may be dismissed at the threshold if no prima facie ground for interference is evident, with liberty to pursue alternate remedies before competent forums. The decision upholds existing precedent on the scope of writ jurisdiction and clarifies its limited reach in fact-intensive banking disputes involving alleged third-party fraud.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/647/2025 of JOHNSON EKKA Vs GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CNR CGHC010353172025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench (Hon’ble Chief Justice & Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction; Clarifies limited scope of writ jurisdiction in fact-intensive disputes |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent on threshold for interference in writ proceedings |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law; Banking Law; Cyber Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether High Court should adjudicate disputed facts regarding alleged cyber fraud and void banking liability in writ jurisdiction without recourse to evidence. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Not expressly cited |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | General principles regarding writ jurisdiction and disputed facts |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44839-DB; NAFR (Not Reportable) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; serves as authority on handling writ petitions involving disputed bank cyber fraud |
| Follows | Follows established law on limitation of writ jurisdiction in fact-intensive disputes |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that writ petitions will not ordinarily be entertained where the controversy hinges on disputed facts, especially regarding banking fraud and liability.
- Clarifies that threshold dismissal does not bar the petitioner from seeking substantive relief before an appropriate forum (civil or criminal).
- The indication that a mere demand or repayment schedule by a bank, absent recovery proceedings, does not provide grounds for urgent writ relief.
- Lawyers should approach writ remedy with caution in complex fraud/banking disputes, particularly where alternative forums are open.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the pleadings and documents and found the petitioner’s allegation: that a cyber fraud led to unauthorized loan disbursement and subsequent EMI demand from the bank.
- The Single Judge’s order was upheld on the ground that the writ petition neither established a prima facie right nor demonstrated exceptional urgency justifying High Court interference under writ jurisdiction.
- Recovery proceedings had not been initiated—only a repayment schedule issued—making the matter premature for writ intervention.
- The dispute involved issues of fact (whether petitioner was liable for the loan or was indeed defrauded), best adjudicated before a competent civil or criminal forum after proper evidentiary analysis.
- Liberty was reserved for the petitioner to approach an appropriate forum as per law, further illustrating the writ court’s self-imposed restraint in fact-intensive matters.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The Single Judge erred by dismissing the writ at admission without notice to Axis Bank and by not considering vital evidence (FIR, bank statements, absence of a loan agreement).
- The challenged loan resulted from impersonation and cyber fraud, as supported by the FIR and criminal proceedings.
- No loan agreement was executed by the petitioner, and contracts vitiated by fraud are void ab initio under Sections 17 & 19 of the Indian Contract Act.
- The bank should have been called to explain the unauthorized transaction.
- Dismissal causes serious prejudice; remedy before the writ court was justified.
Factual Background
The petitioner, an LIC Administration Officer, was allegedly defrauded by an unknown caller posing as an Axis Bank employee who obtained his sensitive details and fraudulently procured personal loans totaling ₹21,24,701, withdrawing funds from his account. The petitioner lodged an FIR, leading to arrest and chargesheet against the accused. Meanwhile, Axis Bank issued a repayment schedule demanding EMI payments for the disputed loan. The petitioner challenged this demand by writ petition, which the Single Judge dismissed without detailed adjudication. The petitioner appealed this order before the Division Bench.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment referred to Sections 17 and 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (fraud and effect of fraud on contract validity), as argued by the petitioner.
- Cited criminal provisions: Sections 318(4), 61(2), 317(5), 111(4), 323, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 66(D) of the I.T. Act, under which the FIR and chargesheet were filed.
- No detailed statutory interpretation was rendered by the court; analysis was confined to the applicability and adequacy of the writ remedy.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded. Both judges agreed on dismissal with liberty to seek alternate remedy.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new guidelines appear from the judgment. Liberty to approach another forum was granted, following established procedures.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Confirms well-settled limit on judicial interference under writ jurisdiction where disputed facts and alternative remedies exist.
Citations
2025:CGHC:44839-DB
NAFR (Not Reportable)