SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 840

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Kapil Gupta and Another – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Another – Respondents
CRR No. 713 of 2020
Decided On : 18-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Angshuman Chakraborty, S.S. Saha.
For the Respondents: Imtiaza Ahmed, Ghazala Firdaus, Sk. Saidullah, Mithun Mondal, Md. Arsalan.

The court reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be initiated when the allegations are purely civil in nature and there is no entrustment of property or dishonest intention on the part of the accused.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - SECTION 406 IPC - CHEATING - SECTION 420 IPC - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - Ingredients of Section 406 and 420 IPC - entrustment - dishonest intention - Whether allegations constitute offences - maintainability of complaint.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners challenged the maintainability of a complaint alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint arose from a commercial dispute between the parties involving the supply of defective goods by the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that the allegations were purely civil in nature and that there was no entrustment or dishonest intention on their part.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the allegations in the complaint, even if accepted on their face value, did not prima facie constitute the offences of criminal breach of trust or cheating. The court found that there was no entrustment of property by the complainant to the petitioners and that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners to cause loss to the complainant. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd. and Others and Deepak Gaba and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another to support its findings.

Issues: Whether the allegations in the complaint constituted the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the essential ingredients of the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating were not present in the present case. The court stated that there was no entrustment of property by the complainant to the petitioners and that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners to cause loss to the complainant. The court also noted that the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature and that there was no basis for initiating criminal proceedings.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and quashed the proceedings in the complaint case.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding being Complaint Case No. 0088326/2016 under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta.

2. The petitioners’ case is that the opposite party no. 2 in the complaint dated 25.05.2016 has stated as follows:

    (i) That during the period 2008 to 2016 the petitioners supplied defective goods worth Rs.4,52,61,889/- which is still lying in the godown and the petitioners herein have failed to pay or refund the amount nor did they replace the defective goods with new one and that letter of credit that is required to be made within 90 days had already been made in terms of the agreement.

(ii) That the complainant company on several occasions requested the petitioners to pay the money back but a total sum of Rs.4,52,61,889/- is still lying outstanding to be payable by the petitioners herein and that the complainant being the opposite party no. 2 is entitled to get an interest on the sum outstanding at the rate of 18% per annum and also to have a sum of Rs.68,460/- as compensation for blocking the godown of the complainant with the defective goods of the petitioners.

(iii) That the complainant has also sent a demand notice to the petitioners through their learned advocate but the petitioners have not cleared the outstanding dues.

(iv) That the petitioners have cheated and caused breach of trust by having mislead the opposite party to enter into the agreement which ought not to have been entered into if the complainant knew that they will not get the money back on complaint of defective goods.

3. That M/s. Compact Lamps Pvt. Ltd. a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act by an order dated 11.01.2019 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, in connection with an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code being No. (IB)1372(PB)/2018, was declared insolvent and an order or moratorium was passed.

4. The petitioner also has a claim of dues that the opposite party no. 2 owes to the petitioners to the tune of Rs.8.5 crores in course of their commercial business relationship.

5. The opposite party no. 2 has also filed another complaint case almost on similar allegation against the sister concern of the petitioner no. 1 being CS 0088331/2016 which is also pending before the same court.

6. Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations as labeled in the petition of complaint is solely private and purely civil in nature since the same revolves around allegations regarding breach of terms of an agreement, and moreover the averments in the petition of complaint is expressive that the opposite party has claimed a sum of money with interest which can never be the domain of the sections in which the case has been started and is pending against the petitioners and hence the same is liable to be quashed.

7. The following judgments have been relied upon by the petitioners:

(ii) Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha vs. Narayan Singh and Another, (1998) 5 SCC 694

Both these judgments relate to dispute in respect of landed property.

8. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the complainant has all along been demanding replacement of defective articles and his dues, but the petitioners have failed to do so in spite of notice. The complainant has made out a prima facie case against the petitioners as alleged and as such the case should be permitted to proceed towards trial and the revision be dismissed.

9. The relevant statements made by the complainant in the written complaint are:

    (i) The complaint was filed by the complainant being authorized by the Board of Directors resolution dated 12th February, 2016.

(ii) The parties herein entered into an agreement in the year 2008.

(iii) The

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top