Criminal prosecution for breach of contract requires proof of mens rea; subsequent contradictory actions may establish potential dishonesty necessitating a trial.

JUDGMENT :

UDAY KUMAR, J.

1. Invoking the inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), this Criminal Revisional Application challenges the continuance of criminal proceedings, being CN/1830 of 2022, pending against the Petitioners (Sreelekha Ray and Debayan Ray of M/s Vagabati Board and Paper Mill) for offences punishable under Sections 406 /418/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ), primarily on the ground that the underlying cause of action pertains strictly to a breach of contract and a commercial debt dispute, which has been maliciously dressed up as a criminal offense.

2. The core contention of the Petitioners is that the matter lacks the essential element of criminal intent (mens rea) required for IPC offenses, particularly Section 420 (Cheating). The dispute, initiated by the Opposite Party (Sarita Agarwal, M/s Balaji Adhesive), concerns the non-payment for a supply of chemical products valued at Rs. 49,560/-.The fundamental assertion of the Petitioners is that the underlying cause of action is strictly a breach of contract and a commercial debt dispute, which has been maliciously cloaked as a criminal offense, thereby lacking the essential element of criminal intent (mens rea). The dispute concerns the non-payment for chemical products (Auromine Colour and Ferric Alum) supplied by the Opposite Party, valued at Rs. 49,560/-.

3. The factual matrix reveals that the relationship commenced in October 2017 with the Petitioners allegedly making "lustrous representations" to induce the supply of goods (specifically Auromine Colour and Ferric Alum) on credit. The controversy is now sharply drawn over two conflicting, mutually exclusive facts: The controversy rests upon two sharply drawn, mutually exclusive factual claims. The Petitioners assert that the goods supplied were of inferior quality and were unequivocally returned on January 28, 2018. This factual position is claimed to be supported by documents concerning the lorry and driver annexed in the Supplementary Affidavit. Conversely, the Opposite Party denies the return, alleging that the Petitioners induced the transaction through "lustrous representations" regarding their "good business repute." The Opposite Party cites as irrefutable proof of dishonest intent the fact that the Petitioners subsequently issued a cheque for part payment on May 30, 2018, which was later dishonoured due to "Fund Insufficient." This cheque issuance, occurring four months after the claimed return, is posited as crucial evidence of a calculated dishonest design.

4. Fundamentally, the judicial determination required for the disposal of this Application hinges on the following legal query:

"Whether the patent contradiction arising from the Petitioners' specific claim of having returned the entirety of the inferior goods on January 28, 2018, and their subsequent issuance of a dishonoured cheque on May 30, 2018, for part payment of the bill amount, prima facie indicates a culpable dishonest intention (mens rea) sufficient to warrant the continuance of the criminal proceedings, or whether the dispute is simpliciter a commercial breach of contract, justifying the invocation of inherent power to quash the complaint?"

5. Mr. Ranojoy Chatterjee, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, argued forcefully that the pro