A breach of contract does not automatically constitute a criminal offense; the absence of dishonest intent at the transaction's inception is crucial.

JUDGMENT :

UDAY KUMAR, J.

1. The present revisional application, under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), has been preferred by the petitioners, Shri Tapas Kumar Das and Smt. Shukla Tapas Das, for quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of First Information Report (FIR) being Serampore Police Station Case No. 47 of 2023, dated February 5, 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 403, 506, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), corresponding to G.R. Case No. 258 of 2023, pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly. It was prayed on the ground of a gross abuse of the process of law, being an attempt to give a criminal colour to an essentially civil dispute.

2. The genesis of the criminal proceedings lies in a complaint filed by the Opposite Party No. 2, Shri Sanjoy Sarkar, an 80-year-old Non-Resident Indian (NRI) residing in the UK. The complaint pertains to a property transaction that commenced in 2015. The complainant executed an agreement to purchase two flats (No. 301 and 302) and a garage from M/s Kamal Enterprises (represented by the petitioners) and M/s Laxmi Agency (represented by Shri Tapan Kumar Das, also an accused). He paid a substantial sum of Rs. 4,99,500/- separately for the garage between December 28, 2013, and July 1, 2015. He handed over its possession to the complainant, despite that he did not execute and registered sale deed for the garage. However, petitioners duly executed and registered the sale deeds only for the two flats. The complainant further alleged that the petitioners consistently avoided his requests for registration of garage and caused disturbances to his peaceful enjoyment and access to the garage by constructing an "illegal wall."

3. The immediate trigger for the criminal complaint was an incident on December 9, 2022, during a request for the garage deed's registration, which reportedly escalated into a "hot altercation," allegedly causing the complainant to suffer a "severe heart attack." Following this, the complainant sent legal notices on December 12 and December 20, 2022, which the petitioners purportedly avoided. When written complaints to the police on January 10, 2023, yielded no action, the complainant filed a court complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which ultimately led to the registration of the impugned FIR on February 5, 2023.

4. Mr. Soumitra Deb, Learned Advocate for the petitioners vigorously contended that the entire dispute is fundamentally civil in nature, emanating from a failure to fulfil a contractual obligation regarding property registration. He asserted that the criminal colour has been maliciously imparted solely to harass the petitioners and gain an undue advantage. In support of this contention, he highlighted a letter from the complainant dated January 25, 2025, explicitly reiterating his demand for the garage's registration. This, it was argued, unequivocally demonstrates that the complainant’s ultimate objective is to secure the property deed, a remedy clearly civil in nature. He also pointed to the Hon'ble High Court’s observation on March 3, 2023, during the anticipatory bail hearing, stating that the disputes "apparently are of civil nature."

5. Further, it was submitted that the