IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
EMTA Coal Ltd. & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 4999 OF 2023 With IA No. CRAN 1 of 2024 With CRAN 2 of 2024 (Assigned)
Decided On : 25-06-2024
Quashment - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections 406, 417, 420, 120B - The court interpreted the essential elements of cheating and criminal breach of trust, concluding that the allegations did not establish a prima facie case, thus quashing the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated by a complaint alleging non-payment for excavation services, claiming a long-standing business relationship and partial payments made.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not demonstrate initial deception or fraudulent intent necessary to constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust, and the matter was primarily a civil dispute.
Issues: Whether the allegations in the complaint constituted a prima facie case of cheating or criminal breach of trust under the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere non-payment or under-payment does not amount to cheating unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent from the inception of the transaction.
Result: The criminal proceedings were quashed as they constituted an abuse of the process of the court.
JUDGMENT :
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
1. Present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner herein with a prayer for quashment of the proceedings in connection with G.R. Case No. 1742 of 2022 arising out of Barjora Police Station Case No. 245 of 2022 dated 28.12.2022 under Sections 406/417/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) presently pending before the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura (for short C.J.M.).
Factual backdrop:
2. The impugned proceeding was put into motion by a complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2 herein with the Superintendent of Police (for short SP) Bankura who in turn forwarded the same to the Officer-in-charge (for short O.C.) of Barjora Police Station for enquiry and upon completion of enquiry the SP granted permission to the O.C., Barjora P.S. to register a case. As a sequel, a specific case being no. 245/2022 was registered by the Barjora P.S. on 28.12.2022.
3. The allegations alienated in the said complaint are to the effect that the opposite party no. 2/M/s G.S. Atwal & Company engaged in the business of excavation and mining activities including providing Heavy Earth Moving Machinery for various projects was approached by the petitioner no. 1/EMTA Coal Ltd., a company dealing in mining of coal to perform excavation of coal at Barjora (North) Block OCP. It is further alleged that due to long standing business relationship between petitioner no.1/company and opposite party no. 2/company herein, the complainant firm/opposite party no. 2 sent an offer to the petitioner no. 1/company vide letter dated 07.10.2013. The offer contained the proposal for the work at the mining site. It has been further added that the accused persons in furtherance of their common mala fide intention requested the opposite party no. 2/company to start the mining work. Upon assurance given by the accused persons that the work order confirming the modalities will be provided in due course, the opposite party no. 2/company started making necessary arrangements for excavation.
4. In addition to that the complainant further alleged that from January, 2014 they started their excavation work but they received the work order only on 12.07.2014. In the meantime, the opposite party no. 2/company raised six Running Account bills (for short R.A. bills) but the accused kept on delaying the payment and only made some part payments.
5. It is alleged that a total of 11 R.A. Bills were raised by the opposite party no. 2/company during the work period from November, 2013 – November, 2014 totaling to an amount of Rs. 69,57,58,441/- (Sixty Nine Crores Fifty Seven Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Forty One Rupees) but the petitioner no. 1/company only made a payment of Rs. 42,41,50,000/- (Forty Two Crores Forty One Lakhs Fifty Thousand Rupees). Despite repeated reminders sent to the accused through various platforms on multiple occasions to settle the due amount, the accused kept on delaying in making payments.
6. Thus, the opposite party no. 2/company alleged that the accused persons have wrongfully and dishonestly made unlawful gains by not paying the legitimate dues of the complainant firm. Therefore, the accused persons have committed offences punishable under Sections 406/417/420/120B of the IPC.
Arguments advanced:
7. Ld. Senior Counsel, Mr. Sandipan Ganguly appearing on behalf of the petitioner has mainly canvassed his argument on the following points:
Against the work done by the opposite party no. 2/company, they raised 11 R.A. bills totaling to an amount of Rs. 69,57,58,441/-. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner no. 1 made part payments totaling to an amount of Rs. 42,41,50,000/-. The last payment being made on 03.03.2015 of Rs. 50,00,000/-.
After the last dat
Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. & Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 228
Binod Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 10 SCC 663
Dilbag Rai vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2019) 16 SCC 736
Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2018)3 SCC 104
Indian Oil Corp. vs. NEPC India & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736
Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2019) 14 SCC 350
Lalmuni Devi (SMT) vs. State of Bihar (2001) 2 SCC 17
Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary (2014) 9 SCC 516
Priti Saraf & Anr. vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2001(4) SCALE 1
Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 259
S.K. Alagh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 662
S.P. Gupta vs. Ashutosh Gupta (2010) 6 SCC 562
Skoda auto volkswagen (India) Private Limited vs. State of UP & Ors. (2021) 5 SCC 795
State of Chattisgarh & Anr. vs. Aman Kumar Singh & Ors. (2023) 6 SCC 559
State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta 2019(2) SCALE 634
State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604
State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Pastor P. Raju (2006)6 SCC 728
State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 691
Vinod Natesan vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 401
Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal and Anr. (2007) 7 SCC 373
Point of law : exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court....
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....
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent is proven at the outset of the agreement, as established in relevant legal precedents.
The court held that mere non-payment of dues in a commercial transaction does not constitute criminal offences under IPC Sections 406 and 420, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal l....
Non-payment of dues does not constitute criminal cheating or breach of trust unless fraudulent intent is established from the inception of the transaction.
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....
Mere non-payment for goods in a civil transaction cannot constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust under IPC; intent must be proven.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.