Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 22

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Sri Shankar Paul And Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 1718 of 2020
Decided On : 07-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv, Mr. Soumya Basu Roychowdhury, Mr. Sarbananda Sanyal.
For the State : Mr. Bitasok Banerjee.

The court held that a mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence, and inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can quash proceedings that are essentially civil disputes.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 506, 34 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners, finding that the dispute was primarily civil in nature regarding payment for services rendered, and did not disclose a criminal offence. (Paras 1, 10, 14, 15)

(B) Jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC - The High Court's inherent powers should be exercised to prevent abuse of process when no criminal offence is made out, particularly in cases where civil disputes are cloaked as criminal offences. (Paras 7, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged non-payment for services related to land conversion, claiming a total due amount of Rs.65,00,000/- from the petitioners, who sold the property for Rs.55,00,000/-. The complaint included threats made by the petitioners.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations did not constitute a criminal offence and were essentially a civil dispute regarding payment.

Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations constituted a criminal offence or were merely a civil dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a mere breach of contract does not amount to a criminal offence, and the inherent powers of the High Court should be used to quash proceedings that are manifestly civil in nature.

Result: The proceedings were quashed.

JUDGMENT :

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)

1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding, being G.R. Case No. 1451 of 2018, arising out of Contai Police Station Case No. 388 of 2018, dated November 19, 2018, under Sections 420/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Contai, Purba Medinipur, including order dated September 2, 2019, passed by the said Learned Court, thereby taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in connection with the above proceeding.

2. The allegations made by the de facto complainant in the written complaint giving rise to the present case are as follows:-

“………...That since 14.09.2025 I work as authorized representative of Sankar Pal and his all other co-sharers to purchase lands at Athilgori Mouza and Padmapukuria Mouza, do the mutation, conversion and all Court related works. Apart from this, my name is also registered in the Department of West Bengal in relation to conversion matters. It is hereby informed you, that a registered written agreement was signed (registered Power of Attorney Holder being No.IV 28 of 2015 dated 09.02.2015) with the permission of his family and was executed on 09.06.2016 and that was notarised at present Bankshall court and was recorded before a Govt Notarized officer of Kolkata. According to the agreement, my total entitled amount is Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lac) only. The work of conversion was completed on 19.06.2017. It is the duty of Sankar Pal and his family members to send the due amount of Rs.65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty five Lac only) within seven days. Besides that, I made the payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs) only in cash on behalf of Sankar Pal and his family. But till today no amount has been transferred in my Account regarding this conversion matters and on 28.04.2018 Sankar Pal and his family members sold the landed properties upon consideration of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lac) only to Sudarshan Manna. It was settled to pay me that amount on 25.04.2018. I lodged a written complaint before chairman, Kanthi on 11.09.2018 owing to non-receipt of the amount. Receiving to the complaint, the office of the chairman tried to contact the family members of Sankar Paul but no proper reply was received from family members of Pal. Apart from this, I met Pal family several times and contacted with them regarding the non receipt of the said amount. Instead, the Pal family used filthy languages against me and misbehaved with me. Thereafter, when I went to ask for the money they threatened to kill me in public and also told to do damage of my family. Therefore, my humble submission is that, Sankar Pal and his family members are economically and politically too much influential……….”

3. A copy of the said agreement between the parties has been annexed along with the revisional application at page 64.

4. From the written complaint and the materials in the Case Diary, it appears that prima facie, the complainant assisted the petitioners on the basis of a written agreement between them in the process of conversion of land.

5. The grievance of the complainant is that he was entitled to a certain amount of payment for the said work which the petitioners have not made.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the opposite party/ complainant who has submitted that he is entitled to the said payment and that till date he has not received any payment and as such the case should be permitted to go to trial.

7. In Naresh Kumar Vs The State Of Karnataka., Criminal Appeal No. …………….. of 2024, (Arising Out Of SLP (Crl.) No. 1570 of 2021), on 12th March, 2024, the Supreme Court held as follow:-

(2013) 11 SCC 673