SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 149

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.
Ajit Kumar Sinha – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Another – Respondents
C.R.R. 636 of 2017
Decided On : 29-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Singh, Adv. Ms. Sarmistha Basak, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bazaz, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Satadru Lahiri, Adv. Mr. Krishna Chandra Das, Adv. Mr. Safdar Azam, Adv. Mr. Jyotirmoy Talukder, Adv.

Non-payment of dues does not constitute criminal cheating or breach of trust unless fraudulent intent is established from the inception of the transaction.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406 and 420 - Quashing of proceedings - Complaint alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust due to non-payment of dues for services rendered - Court found that the dispute was purely civil in nature and did not disclose ingredients of criminal offences - Criminal proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process of law. (Paras 41, 42, 43)

(B) Criminal Jurisdiction - Distinction between civil and criminal liability - Mere non-payment of dues does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust unless fraudulent intention is established from the inception of the transaction. (Paras 26, 30, 32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a director of a company, was accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust for failing to pay a bill of Rs. 2,18,425/- for banquet services. Despite issuing cheques, payments were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The petitioner claimed financial crisis and argued that the dispute was civil, not criminal. (Paras 3-10)

Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of dishonest intention at the time of the transaction and ruled that the allegations did not meet the criteria for criminal offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. (Paras 26, 41)

Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations constituted criminal offences and the distinction between civil liability and criminal prosecution. (Paras 26, 41)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-payment of dues does not equate to criminal cheating unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent from the beginning of the transaction. (Paras 30, 41)

Result: Criminal proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. background of the case (Para 1)
2. details of the complaint (Para 3)
3. cheque dishonour (Para 4 , 7 , 8)
4. assurances and further cheques (Para 5 , 6)
5. outstanding balance (Para 9 , 10)
6. civil liability argument (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
7. legal process argument (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
8. court's analysis of allegations (Para 25)
9. distinction between offences (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
10. criminal proceedings quashed (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This instant Criminal Revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking for quashing of the proceedings being Complaint Case No. 122006 of 2016 under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court at Calcutta including Impugned Order dated 25.11.2016 passed in connection with the proceedings therewith.

2. The background facts, which led to filing of this Criminal Revisional application, may be adumbrated as under:

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 herein has filed and moved a petition of complaint before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate being Complaint Case No. 122006 of 2016 alleging, inter alia, that in the month of September, 2015, the accused no. 1, Odyssey Infomedia Pvt. Ltd. approached the complainant through its Director, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha through an E-Mail as they were in need of banquet halls to hold an exhibition-cum-conference summit in the month of November, 2015. In reply to their e-mail, the complainant has arranged three banquet halls, namely, Rosewood, Banyan and Ebony for exhibition-cum-conference summit and necessary rental charges for hall, lunch and dinner were fixed.

4. As per the agreement, the aforementioned three banquet halls were rented out to the accused no. 1 for holding their exhibition-cum-conference summit from 9 am to 11 pm on 27.11.2015. After the completion of aforesaid event, a bill for the food and rental charges of Rs. 2,18,425/-was raised but the same was not paid by the accused person.

5. On requesting for payment of the said amount, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha assured them that the bill amount would be paid. Subsequently, based on the assurance given by Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, the accused no. 2 issued cheque being no. 012823 amounting to Rs. 2,18,425/-in favour of the complainant to discharge their liability. However, the said cheque was returned by the bank on 02.12.2015 with remarks “dishonoured for insufficient funds”.

6. After the said cheque was returned, the matter of its dishonour was reported to the accused nos. 2 and 3. In response, they stated that they were facing a financial crisis but assured that they would arrange the money and make the payment as soon as possible.

7. After a considerable period of time, the accused nos. 2 and 3 issued two fresh cheques drawn on the Central Bank of India, Sehani Branch, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad, U.P., 201003 amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-dated 15.04.2016 and Rs. 1,18,425/-dated 20.04.2016 in favour of the complainant. Both the cheques were presented to the bank for encashment, but, were dishonoured due to “insufficient funds”.

8. The matter was once again reported to the accused nos. 2 and 3. They requested some time to arrange the payment of the Bill amount. However, the accused person did not make any effort to pay the money.

9. After a long period of time, the accused persons transferred a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh in favour of the complainant. However, the remaining outstanding balance of Rs. 1,18,425/-has not yet been paid. The accused persons continued to avoid payment and eventually denied making the payment. Therefore, they intentionally cheated the complainant in furtherance of their common criminal conspiracy.

10. On the other hand, Petitioner herein claims that he is the Director of the Odyssey Infomedia Pvt. Ltd. located at 3

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top