Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 801
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Sailendra Prasad Talukdar, J.
RATAN CHANDRA GURIA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
AST 354 Of 2006
Decided On : 12/19/2006
ABHRA MUKHERJI, DEBABRATA ROY, RANJAN ROY
Mere failure to keep up a promise does not necessarily lead to a presumption of culpable intention to cheat, and a distinction must be made between breach of contract and the offense of cheating.
Headnote:
Ratan Chandra Guria v. State of West Bengal and Ors. - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Sections 420, 120B of Indian Penal Code - Abuse of Process of Court - Interpretation of Ingredients of Cheating - Applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Ratan Chandra Guria, sought to quash criminal proceedings against him for offenses under Sections 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The charges stemmed from a complaint alleging that the petitioner and others had fraudulently obtained a Mediclaim certificate from an insurance company without fulfilling their obligations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the complaint did not disclose any offense under Sections 420 or 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It held that the non-settlement of the Mediclaim claim, as alleged by the complainant, was not done with the intention to cheat and that there was no initial deception.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations in the complaint disclosed an offense under Sections 420 or 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: 1. The distinction between breach of contract and the offense of cheating lies in the intention of the accused at the time of inducement. Mere breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction. 2. When a complaint does not disclose an offense and the dispute appears to be in the nature of a civil dispute, the prosecution may be quashed as its continuation would amount to abuse of the process of the court. 3. The court can quash a proceeding even at a preliminary stage if the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
( 1 ) THE petitioner, Ratan Chandra Guria, by filing an application under section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sought for quashing of the proceeding being G. R. Case No. 704 of 2001 arising out of purulia Town Police Station Case No. 93/2001 dated 28. 9. 2001 under Sections 420 and 120b of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Learned 3rd court of Judicial Magistrate, Purulia.
( 2 ) THE backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows :-On 28. 9. 2001 the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a petition of complaint before the Learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, being Case No. 99/ 2001. Learned Court directed the Officec-in-Charge of the Purulia Police Station to investigate into the case after treating the said petition of complaint as F. I. R. under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code. The allegations made in the petition of complaint led the Police authority register a case under Sections 420/120b of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation Police authority submitted report wherein it was stated that M/s. New India Assurance company Limited had duly issued a Mediclaim certificate in favour of the complainant after receiving the premium amount from M/s. Golden Trust financial Services and had even received the claim but had not fulfilled the obligation. The investigation revealed that the petitioner and one, Kumud bhattacharjee, committed the offence. It was alleged by the petitioner herein that the F. I. R. which led to the registration of the Purulia Town Police Station case No. 93/2001 was more in the nature of pressurising the concerned insurance Company to submit to the claim of O. P. No. 2 though the said claim was not substantiated by relevant documents. This was previously done at a stage when the matter was pending for consideration before the learned District consumer's Dispute Redressal Forum. It was alleged that criminal prosecution was started for a collateral purpose. The Investigating Authority without appreciating the matter in its proper perspective and relying upon the evidence of the witnesses, who do not seem to have any knowledge of the present controversy submitted charge-sheet in this case. It was further claimed that the Police report spelt out of offence as against M/s. New India Assurance company Limited as it recorded that "it has amply been proved that New India assurance Company Limited had duly issued the Mediclaim certificate in favour of the complainant after receiving the premium amount from Golden Trust and even received the claim submitted by the de facto complainant without fulfilling their obligation. The written objection of the two Company before the Ld. Forum conclusively proves about an unholy nexus between them so as to cheat the person with allurement. "
( 3 ) IT is alleged that the District Consumers' Dispute Redressal Forum, purulia observed that the complainant being the second Opposite Party failed to substantiate the claim and submit documents as demanded. The complainant having failed to do so, it was within the competence of the concerned Insurance company to refuse the claim. Such refusal could not amount to commission of any offence. There could be no question of any unholy alliance or nexus between M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and M/s. Golden Trust financial Services. It was further claimed that the charge-sheet and the various other materials and documents accompanying the same do not make out any offence punishable under Section 420 or Section 120b of Indian Penal Code.
( 4 ) THE present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure was, thus, filed with a prayer for quashing of the instant proceeding.
( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not proper for the learned Court to take cognizance on the basis of Police report submitted in this case without appreciating the peculiarity of the circumstances. Mr.
