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
| 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
Bhushan Kumar and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2012) 5 SCC 424
Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. Surendra Kumar Sharma & Ors. (2014) 13 SCC 401
Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha & Ors.
Haridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 168
Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab
Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.(2019) 14 SCC 350;
Lalmuni Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 439
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. Biological E. Ltd. and Others
Medmeme, LLC and Others Vs. Ihorse BPO Solutions Private Limited
Nagpur Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. P. Radhakrishna Alias Ranjan and Ors.
Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand
Pradeep S. Wodeyar Vs. State of Karnataka
S.P. Gupta Vs. Ashutosh Gupta (2010) 6 SCC 562
Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2021) 5 SCC 795
The State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai and Anr. 1972 CrLJ 1243
Vijay Dhanuka and Ors. Vs. Najima Mamtaj and Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 638
Non-payment of dues does not constitute criminal cheating or breach of trust unless fraudulent intent is established from the inception of the transaction.
Mere non-payment for goods in a civil transaction cannot constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust under IPC; intent must be proven.
Non-payment in a commercial transaction does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating unless there is evidence of dishonest intention from the inception.
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....
(1) Issuance of process – Mere existence of some grounds which would be material in deciding whether accused should be convicted or acquitted does not generally indicate that case must necessarily fa....
Fraudulent intent at the inception of a transaction is essential to establish cheating; mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence.
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....
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.
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.