Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Soumajit Bag and Another – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Another – Respondents
CRR No. 768 of 2019
Decided On : 21-06-2023
CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - SECTION 406 IPC - CONTRACTUAL DISPUTE - CIVIL COURT - CRIMINAL COURT'S JURISDICTION - DISTINCTION - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE - ENTRUSTMENT - DISHONEST MISAPPROPRIATION - INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE - HYPOTHECATION - NO ENTRUSTMENT OF PROPERTY - NO CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - CIVIL DISPUTE - CRIMINAL PROSECUTION - CAUTIONS - FRAUDULENT, DISHONEST OR DECEPTIVE INDUCEMENTS - INVOLUNTARY AND INEFFICIENT TRANSFERS - SECTION 415 IPC - JUDICIAL RESTRAINT - OBSERVATIONS AT TRIAL STAGE - BEARING ON ADJUDICATION - EXPUNGING OF OBSERVATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, landlords, and developers, challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against them for offenses under Sections 188/447/341/427/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the dispute arose from a civil matter and should be adjudicated in a civil court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute between the parties stemmed from a development agreement and subsequent transfer of the property, affecting the rights of the complainant. The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd. and Others, which held that a complaint can be quashed if the allegations do not constitute an offense or if it is an abuse of the process of the court. The court also referred to the ingredients of the offense of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC and the distinction between civil and criminal remedies in contractual disputes.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations in the complaint constituted an offense under Sections 188/447/341/427/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the dispute was purely civil in nature and should be adjudicated in a civil court? 3. Whether the criminal court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations in the complaint, if accepted at face value, disclosed a prima facie case of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. The court noted that there was evidence of fraudulent/dishonest intention/dishonest misappropriation on the part of the petitioners, who transferred the property despite receiving monetary consideration. The court also held that the dispute was not purely civil in nature, as there was an element of criminal breach of trust involved. Therefore, the criminal court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners, holding that the trial court should consider Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code at the time of framing the charge. The court also directed that the trial court send a copy of the judgment to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.
JUDGMENT :
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding being Baruipur Police Station Case No. 13 of 2017, dated 02.01.2017 in G.R. Case No. 445 of 2017, under Sections 188/447/341/427/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, District-South 24-Parganas.
2. The petitioners’ case is that the defacto complainant/opposite party no. 2 herein is the developer under the petitioners/landlord nos. 2 and 3 herein in respect of property under Mouza - Baruipur, J.L. No. 32, Touzi No. 250, R.S. Khatian No. 8366, R.S. Dag No. 172 and 166/998 under Police Station - Baruipur, District-South 24-Parganas.
3. It is stated by the petitioner that the opposite party/defacto complainant made a false allegation at Baruipur Police Station on 02.01.2017 against the petitioners as follows:
“I Sri Biplab Bhattacharjee, son of Bireshwar Bhattacharjee, of Village-Sasan, Bariupur, Police Station - Baruipur, District - South 24-Parganas, am a permanent resident thereof. My submission is that I with Debabrata Ray, Son of Late Pradip Ray of Purba Tentulberia, Post Office-Garia, Police Station - Sonarpur, District - South 24-Parganas jointly entered into a development agreement dated 10.07.2017 with one Manendra Mukherjee and Arabindra Mukherjee. As per said development agreement huge amount of money was incurred thereon. But due to non-settlement with one tenant namely Sobita Mishra, wife of Doctor Abhoy Pada Mishra of Mishra Medical Hall with said Manabendra Mukherjee and Arabindra Mukherjee, we are unable to develop their portion. Therefore, we filed a Title Suit being T.S. No. 30 of 2016 before the Learned 1st Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Baruipur and after hearing, Learned Court has been pleased to pass an order that:-both sides are directed to maintain status quo in respect of possession and alienating of the suit property until further order, and the said suit is still pending. After knowing the said order of injunction, aforesaid persons have handed over possession of said portion to Soumojit Bag, son of Late Dilip Bag of Village - Madarat Road, Ward No. 3, Police Station - Baruipur, District - South 24-Parganas. But after came to know the aforesaid order of injunction said Soumojit Bag forcefully changed the nature and character of the suit shop room when I raised protest, they used very filthy languages and threatening to me. They have thrown a stone to me. They also told to me if he raised objection they will murder me, because they purchased the thana, police by money, so I pray for lodged First Information Report against the aforesaid persons. The de facto complainant have informed the same to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Baruipur Sub-Division, Madarat Road, South 24-Parganas on 22.12.2016, thereafter Baruipur Police Station started a criminal case being Baruuipur Police Station Case No. 13 of 2017, dated 02.01.2017, under Sections 188/447/427/325/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners herein.”
4. The petitioners state that from the aforesaid complaint lodged by the defacto complainant/opposite party namely Sri Biplab Bhattacharjee it is can be seen that it is purely a civil dispute. The allegation of the defacto complainant/opposite party is purely civil in nature and the Civil Court is the appropriate Forum to entertain this matter, when a Title Suit is also pending. The defacto complainant has obtained an ad-interim order of injunction (ex-parte) against the petitioners just to mislead the Learned Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Baruipur. On the other hand the actual fact is that the said de facto complainant and said Debabrata Roy have no locus standi to file any case against the petitioners, because on 03.08.2015 said Manabendra Mukherjee and Arabindra Mukherjee cancelled the said Development Agreement as well as revoked the Power of Attorney and it was well
AI
A mere breach of a promise, agreement, or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustmen....
The court established that inadequate notice to a complainant in criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of process, and emphasized the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.
The Court held that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners are not present. The Court also noted that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature....
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 th....
The ingredients required to constitute the offenses of criminal breach of trust and cheating were not prima facie present against the petitioners.
The court reiterated the principles for quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal wrongs. It held that criminal proceedings should not be ....
Main Legal Point
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for disputes that are purely civil in nature, and the High Court has the authority to quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
