Recovery of money given to a friend as loan

I was a student studying abroad in Belgium. In 2016, one of my colleague who was also staying in Belgium took around 1100 euros which correspond to Rs 88000 in today’s conversion rate. He promised to return in two months. However, soon after going back to India he disappeared, switched off his mobile phone, change his email account. I tried making several contacts but of no response. I called their parents, but they denied that his son has taken the money and now not responding to my calls. Its almost two years now but I cannot contact him. I gave…

I was a student studying abroad in Belgium. In 2016, one of my colleague who was also staying in Belgium took around 1100 euros which correspond to Rs 88000 in today’s conversion rate. He promised to return in two months. However, soon after going back to India he disappeared, switched off his mobile phone, change his email account. I tried making several contacts but of no response. I called their parents, but they denied that his son has taken the money and now not responding to my calls. Its almost two years now but I cannot contact him.

I gave him a loan as cash on two instalments (500 euro each). I have proof of bank transaction. I have audio and email confirmations of money given and acknowledging about the same.

I am helpless and badly want to get my hard-earned money back. I belong to a middle-class family and saved money to support my studies abroad and family expenses. I feel cheated and seek legal help if any possible to recover the amount. Please help me if any lawyers can provide legal help/suggestions on this.

Your friend has committed the offence of cheating. He had the intention to take money from you by making a false promise to return. At the same time, he had no plan to pay back the said money.

He switched off his mobile phone and closed the email id. These acts itself prove that he is trying to conceal his appearance. The main reason behind such concealment is not to pay back the money.

You may file an FIR for the offence of cheating. The Indian court has jurisdiction to try this case however money transferred in Belgium.

Jurisdiction of court

According to section 4 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), if an Indian citizen commits an act in a foreign country which is an offence under the IPC, the court has jurisdiction to try that offence.

Therefore, you can file the FIR in the nearest police station in whose jurisdiction you are currently living.

Limitation period

The offence of cheating is punishable with the imprisonment up to seven years. Therefore, there is no limitation period for institution of FIR. The court will take cognisance even after the delay of three years.

Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provides a limitation period for taking cognisance. According to it, there is no limitation period if the offence is punishable with more than three years of imprisonment.

Offence of Cheating

The offence of cheating is punishable under section 420 of the IPC. If the accused had a dishonest or fraudulent intention and induced the person to deliver the property, he commits cheating. Your friend had such intention and influenced you. Therefore, he commits the offence of cheating.

In Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Ltd., (2005) 10 SCC 228 the supreme court holds that mere failure to keep the promise at a subsequent stage does not constitute the offence of cheating. If he had a dishonest intention and deceived by the false hope, he commits a crime, i.e. cheating.

Therefore, you should file an FIR against him as soon as possible. You must explain the delay for filing FIR because it is necessary to make the FIR trustworthy. You have sufficient evidence. Firstly, a proof of withdrawal of money from your bank account. Secondly, audio and email conversation in which he acknowledged the receiving that money.  Thirdly, he ran away after coming to India. All the above evidence prove that he committed the offence of cheating. You should take suitable action against your friend.

Tags: Civil Law

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Related Matters

Husband is demanding DNA test to check the paternity of our son in divorce case

The law does not permit a husband to compel his wife or child to undergo a DNA test merely on the basis of suspicion. In Gautam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) 3 SCC 418, the Supreme Court held that a blood or DNA test cannot be directed as a matter of course. Before seeking such a direction, the husband must establish a strong prima facie case by proving that he had no access to his wife during the period when the child could have been conceived.

क्या चेक बाउंस का केस मियाद समाप्त होने के बाद भी दाखिल हो सकता है

Negotiable Instruments Act के अंतर्गत, वैधानिक अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद भी चेक बाउंस का मामला दायर किया जा सकता है। यदि शिकायतकर्ता देरी का उचित कारण प्रस्तुत करता है, तो न्यायालय विलंब को क्षमा कर शिकायत स्वीकार कर सकता है। नोटिस के बाद निर्धारित समय में भुगतान न होने पर कार्यवाही प्रारंभ की जा सकती है।

Cancellation of bail when accused tempering with witness

Seeking the cancellation of bail is possible when an accused person tampers with witnesses or influences a trial. This guide explains legal grounds for such actions, focusing on mandatory procedures under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act and post-bail threats. Learn how victims can approach higher courts to ensure a fair trial and protect their rights.

Evidence of interested witness is admissible in criminal proceedings

In criminal law, the testimony of a related witness cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship with the victim. This legal overview clarifies the distinction between related and interested witnesses, citing key Supreme Court rulings. It explains how natural witnesses provide admissible evidence that reliably forms the basis for a conviction, even without independent corroboration.

SDM cannot attach property under section 146 crpc when civil suit is pending

A Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot legally attach property under Section 146 of the CrPC if a civil suit regarding the same property is already pending. This guide explains why such orders lack jurisdiction and outlines the proper legal remedy, including filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC to the High Court based on established Supreme Court precedents.