Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes; a prima facie case must exist to avoid abuse of legal processes.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing and/or setting aside of the impugned charge sheet being no. 392/2020 dated 30.11.2020 under Sections 447/448/509/354/323/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 arising out of Chanditala P.S. Case No. 325 of 2020 dated 22.10.2020 under Sections 427 /447 /448 /509 /354B /323 /325 /504 /506 /120B /34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Serampore, Hooghly.

2. The allegations in the petition of complaint filed under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC is as follows:-

“That the accused persons have nexus with anti-social elements and as the complainant and her family members are poor, so, the accused persons have been terrorizing them time and again and they have been continuously threatening them with dire consequences to grab the above mentioned property. That on 12.10.2020 at about 1 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. the accused persons illegally assembled with intention to grab the property at J.L. No. 69, Mouza- Jay Kishnapur, R.S. Dag No. 679, L.R. Dag No. 716, L.R. Khatian No. 2759 (which is still in possession of the complainant) and made criminal trespass. Somehow, the complainant got information and protested their said act and they became violent and intentionally started pushing the complainant. Accused no. 1 Subal Ghorui, disrobed the complainant by tearing her wearing apparels. Accused no. 2 Partha Mal outraged the modesty of the complainant by touching her private parts. The accused no. 1 and 2 assembled with accused no. 3 Amit Prakash Agarwal attacked the complainant with lathi and also hurt her with fist and blows. The accused no. 3 accompanied with some anti-social persons destroyed the fence of the said above mentioned land and also demolished corps and trees such as turmeric, segum, sishu etc. with JCP by which the complaint sustained a loss more or less of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only and lodged GDE being no. 692 dated 12.10.2020 before the Chanditala P.S. authority.”

3. The State has placed the case diary.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalit Chaturvedi vs. State of U.P, Criminal Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13485 of 2023):

“5. This Court, in a number of judgments, has pointed out the clear distinction between a civil wrong in the form of breach of contract, non-payment of money or disregard to and violation of the contractual terms; and a criminal offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC. Repeated judgments of this Court, however, are somehow overlooked, and are not being applied and enforced. We will be referring to these judgments. The impugned judgment dismisses the application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground of delay/laches and also the factum that the chargesheet had been filed on 12.12.2019. This ground and reason is also not valid.

6. In “Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar”, this Court had referred to Section 420 of the IPC, to observe that in order to constitute an offence under the said section, the following ingredients are to be satisfied:—

“18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are as follows:

(i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission;

(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and

(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

19. To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should hav