Simultaneous Claim of Unpaid Loan Amount in Civil and Criminal Courts of Bangladesh: Examining the Doctrine of Double Jeopardy

Since the advent of human civilization, the legal right of the Creditor to recover his unpaid loan is recognized as a universal legal right. This is an absolute right of the Creditor to take legal steps to recover the loan or debt. The Judicial pattern of Bangladesh also supports the Legal initiatives by the creditor to realize the unpaid loans or debts and thus the Civil and Criminal Judicature in Bangladesh allow a creditor to initiate a Civil Suit and/ or Criminal Case for getting his money back through the intervention of Courts. But the methodology in two forums i.e., the civil judicature and the Criminal Judicature for the same matter often treated as dual action for a cause of action which is popularly known as ‘double Jeopardy’ and thus the debate goes on in legal arena as plea on behalf of the loanee/ debtor resulting in the academic analysis of the procedural initiatives by the Creditor. The doctrinal, Constitutional and Procedural dimensions of pursuing unpaid loan claims concurrently in civil and criminal courts within Bangladesh have been focused in this Article. Whether such simultaneous legal proceedings i.e., most commonly under the Money Loan Court Act (Artha Rin Adalat Ain), 2003 (for civil enforcement) or Money Suit (for civil enforcement) and Section 138 or Section 140 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for criminal prosecution) give rise to a violation of the principle of double jeopardy or not is the principal concentration of this academic discussion. The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh ensures the safeguard of an individual to be prosecuted twice for the same offence as the Article 35(2) declares that “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once”. This article argues that, theoretically and doctrinally, the principle of double jeopardy does not extend to civil proceedings, and therefore, the simultaneous use of both civil and criminal mechanisms in loan recovery processes is not per se unconstitutional or unlawful. However, the convergence of these mechanisms raises concerns about procedural fairness, abuse of process, and the coercive misuse of criminal sanctions to enforce civil obligations.