Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1246
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.
IN THE MATTER OF
M/s. Sterling Holiday Resorts & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
C.R.R. No. –3330 of 2018 With C.R.R. 880 of 2018
Decided on : 14-05-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Rajib Mallick, Adv., Ms. Sonia Mukherjee Adv., Mr. Rajib Mullick, Adv.,
For the Respondent: Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Anirban Dutta, Adv., Ms. P. Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Aditya Roy Adv., Mr. Imran Ali, Adv., Ms. Debjani Sahu Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes, especially when barred by limitation and lacking essential elements of the alleged offences.
Headnote:
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections 406, 420, 417, 418 - The court interpreted the provisions of IPC regarding cheating and criminal breach of trust, emphasizing the necessity of deception and the timeliness of complaints, ultimately quashing the proceedings as they were deemed civil in nature and time-barred.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants alleged that the petitioner company failed to provide promised holiday memberships and refunds, leading to criminal complaints filed after a significant delay, prompting the petitioners to seek quashing of the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaints were barred by limitation and did not disclose any ingredients of the alleged offences, determining that the disputes were civil in nature rather than criminal.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner company were maintainable given the delay in filing and the nature of the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that criminal proceedings cannot be used for recovery of money in civil disputes and emphasized the need for timely complaints and the presence of essential ingredients for the alleged offences.
Result: The criminal proceedings against the petitioner company were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Subhendu Samanta, J.
1. Both the Criminal Revisions are preferred for quashing two criminal proceedings pending before the Learned Magistrate concerned on the basis of similar facts and circumstances. On 18th January, 2018, Mrs. Nirmala Debi Singhaniaya, i.e. OP No. 2 of CRR 880 of 2018 filed a complaint before the Court of Learned ACMM Calcutta alleging inter alia that in the year 1997 Mrs. Singhaniya had approached by the present petitioners being the representative of M/s. Sterling Holidays Resort Limited for heritage membership in respect of different holiday destinations resort in India. By such approach the complainant and his family members took various membership with the said company and paid the necessary fees towards the membership. It has been agreed that in case the petitioners company failed to provide payment/resort, the company was obliged to pay the damages. The facts suggested that the petitioner company failed to complete the project within time. In 2001, the complainant sought for cancellation of such membership. Accordingly the company changed the membership of the complainant and requested for adjustment of the amount with Food Vouchers. Such request was not accepted by the complainant thereafter the company assured the complainant that some effective steps would be taken to redress her grievances. However, it has been alleged that nothing fruitful had happened in 2004 and in the mean time, the company had allegedly kept on changing its office. Thus in the year 2017, the complainant issued a legal facts thereby demanding a sum of Rs. 7,65,000/-which was denied by the company. Thus the complainant lodged the complaint before the Learned Magistrate.
2. On the basis of such complaint the Learned ACJM had taken cognizance and forwarded the case to the court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 8th Court Calcutta for inquiry in trial. After receiving such record, Learned MM Concerned examined one Ajay Kr. Singhaniya u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and issued process against the present petitioner company u/s 406/420/417/418 of IPC.
3. Hence this instant criminal revision for quashing of the criminal proceeding being complaint case No. 36 of 2018 is preferred.
4. One Ajay Kumar Singhaniya on 6th of October 2018 filed a complaint before the court of Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (I) Calcutta seeking a direction u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. The Learned ACMM went on the basis of such prayer and directed the concerned PS to investigate the matter; accordingly the Posta Police Station case No. 279 of 2018 u/s 446/420/120B of IPC was started by the police. The said FIR of Ajay Kumar Singhaniya also alleged that in pursuance to the representation of the present accused petitioner company in the year 1996, the OP No. 2 applied for Single Room Apartment at Corbet Resorts against payment of Rs. 59,825/-. As the Apartment was not constructed till 2001, the OP No. 2 applied for refund before the petitioner company. The petitioner company allegedly assured adjustment against the membership. However, neither any adjustment was made nor the money was refunded, in which the OP No. 2 i.e. the Ajay Kumar Singhaniya has lodged the complaint. To quash the said complaint the CRR No. 3330 of 2018 was registered.
5. Both the CRRs were heard analogously at length.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that both the criminal proceeding are barred by limitation. It has been admitted that the proposed heritage membership was accepted in the year 1996-98 but the instant criminal proceeding, was initiated after inordinate delay that is after long 20 years of the alleged incident. The complaints disclosed no explanation for such delay; accordingly the instant criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed. Learned Advocate for the petitioner cited a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Prem Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., (2020) 20 SCC 623 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when a claim of a party is ot
