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) 964

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
APURBA SINHA RAY, J.
Sankar Mondal – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Another – Respondents
CRR No. 1232 of 2023
Decided On : 26-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Arun Kumar Mohanty, Kaberi Sengupta Mohanty, R.R. Mohanty, Snigdha Ghosh, Shivam Saha, Pusprita Chowdhury, Awantika Bajpai, Rajorna Mazumder, Deblina Basu
For the Respondents: Imtiaz Ahmed, Ghazala Firdaus, Sk. Saidullah, Mithun Mondal, Md. Arsalan

A criminal complaint must not be lodged when the dispute is primarily civil; therefore, criminal proceedings are an abuse of law.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Application for quashing of criminal proceedings - Complaint alleged both civil and criminal liabilities - High Court emphasized the need for proper application of mind in the issuance of process - Dispute fundamentally civil in nature, warranting resolution in civil court - Judicial Magistrate's process deemed an abuse without proper reasoned order - Petitioner's claim of no criminality supported by police report - Consequently, proceedings quashed. (Paras 6, 29, 31)

(B) Criminal complaints - Nature of allegations - Heavy scrutiny required when distinguishing civil disputes from criminal offences - Courts advised against converting civil issues into criminal cases merely for leverage - Court to avoid allowing criminal proceedings in absence of substantial criminal allegations. (Paras 6, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner entered into a development agreement but disputes arose, leading to a cancellation agreement stipulating repayment of funds. Despite no evidence of criminal wrongdoing and police report indicating a civil nature for the dispute, a Judicial Magistrate issued process against the petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court determines that judicial proceedings against the petitioner constitute an abuse of process given the nature of the allegations.

Issues: The central issues include whether the allegations amount to a criminal act or are predominantly civil in nature and the propriety of the Judicial Magistrate's decision to issue process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations primarily indicate a civil dispute and that the resolution should reside within civil jurisdiction, thus quashing the related criminal proceedings.

Result: The application for quashing is allowed, and proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. details of the agreements and disputes. (Para 1 , 24 , 30)
2. arguments regarding the nature of the complaint. (Para 2 , 3 , 16)
3. legal principles concerning cognizance and complaints. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. guidance on the quashing of criminal proceedings. (Para 12 , 13 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. criteria for determining the nature of allegations. (Para 14 , 18 , 19)
6. court's reasoning on the lack of criminality. (Para 28 , 29)
7. final decision to allow the application. (Para 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT :

APURBA SINHA RAY, J.

1. The instant application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner Sankar Mondal alleging inter alia that initially an agreement dated 01.03.2017 was executed by and between the opposite party no. 2 and himself. The said agreement was essentially a development agreement for a project to be constructed by the opposite party no. 2 who had paid Rs. 25,00,000/- (twenty five lakhs only) to the petitioner by way of cheques on the basis of certain conditions as mentioned in the said agreement. However, subsequently misunderstanding and disputes were cropped up and by an agreement dated 04.01.2020 the aforesaid agreement dated 01.03.2017 was mutually cancelled on condition that the petitioner will have to pay Rs. 80,00,000/- (eighty lakhs only) to the opposite party no. 2. However, it is mentioned in the second agreement that the proposed sum of Rs. 80,00,000/- (eighty lakhs only) will include Rs. 25,00,000/- (twenty five lakhs only) which was paid to the opposite party no. 2 by the petitioner.

2. Mr. Maity, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the said agreement dated 04.01.2020 is unconscionable and the petitioner was forced to execute such agreement. However, the opposite party no. 2 lodged a false criminal case, which is full of misrepresentation and anomalies, against the petitioner knowing fully well that the dispute arose between the parties is of civil nature and the opposite party no. 2’s prayer for initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C was turned down and after taking cognizance, the opposite party no. 2 was directed to proceed in accordance with the provisions under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the opposite party no. 2 was examined and an enquiry report was called for from the concerned police station. Although, the police report discloses that there is no criminality involved in the matter, the Learned Judicial Magistrate issued process against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. AC 995 of 2022 in gross violation of the established principles of law. Mr. Maity has further submitted that before taking cognizance and issuance of process, necessary formalities are required to be complied with but in this case the same were not complied with. There are no ingredients of fraud or criminal breach of trust or cheating in the four corners of the complaint. The fact disclosed in the complaint partakes the character of civil wrong and, therefore, the opposite party no. 2 should have moved the civil forum for breach of contract. Moreover, as there was a delay in mutation proceeding the opposite party no. 2 is not willing to proceed with the agreement. It is also submitted by Mr. Maity that time is not stipulated in the agreement dated 01.03.2017 and time is not the essence of the said contract. However, the first agreement has become redundant after execution of the second agreement dated 04.01.2020.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that this is not a direct complaint case and reasons have been given by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore by his order dated 20.04.2022. By the said order the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, Alipore had taken cognizance and for further proceeding, the case was transferred to the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore and thereafter vide order dated 26.07.2022 the p

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